Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Alan Cox wrote: > > > Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed > > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the > > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the > > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread Alan Cox
> Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this. The BKL

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Jason Wohlgemuth wrote: > > In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code > to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by > the kernel_thread() call. > > However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c , >

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Jason Wohlgemuth wrote: In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by the kernel_thread() call. However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c , drivers/md/md.c,

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread Alan Cox
Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this. The BKL is

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Alan Cox wrote: Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't