lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
    Date
    > There are some real ones there.  The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and
    > semaphores are false positives.
    >
    > lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller
    > performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements
    > between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write().

    Ah. I actually knew that. Embarassing. Thanks for pointing it out;
    I'll make the change.

    BTW, are there known deadlocks (harmless or otherwise)? Debugging
    the checker is a bit hard since false negatives are silent...

    Dawson
    -
    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 13:33    [W:5.892 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site