lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:16    [W:0.020 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site