Messages in this thread | | | From | Oliver Neukum <> | Subject | Re: BKL removal | Date | Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:45:03 +0200 |
| |
Am Montag, 8. Juli 2002 21:00 schrieb pmenage@ensim.com: > In article <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D2B0C8A@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>, > > you write: > >The BKL, unless used unbalanced, can never cause a bug. > >It could be insufficient or superfluous, but never be really buggy in > >itself. > > Unless you're including incorrect nesting in your definition of > "unbalanced", that's not really true. E.g. lock_kernel() anywhere that > dcache_lock is held can deadlock against anywhere that does a path > lookup with the BKL held (such as do_coredump()).
Yes, for the record. If you mix locking orders you can deadlock, as with any other lock. And the BKL needs process context. And it doesn't help against races with interrupts.
Regards Oliver
- 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/
| |