Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:39:31 +0100 | From | Martin Wirth <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek |
| |
On 30 Jan 2002, Martin Wirth wrote: > >void combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x) ..... > } else <--- > x->owner=current; > spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
Uugh, the else is wrong of course. The owner has to be set in any case.(Just deleted some debugging code and reformatted a bit to quick :))
A further note: Although the combilock shares some advantages with a spin-lock (no unnecessary scheduling for short time locking) it may behave like a semaphore on entry also if you call combi_spin_lock. For example
spin_lock(&slock); combi_spin_lock(&clock);
is a BUG because combi_spin_lock may sleep while holding slock!
Would be nice if there were some comments.
Martin Wirth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |