Messages in this thread | | | From | Dawson Engler <> | Subject | Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks | Date | Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:05:50 -0800 (PST) |
| |
> 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/
| |