Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:27:37 -0500 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: + uml-sigwinch-handling-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:54:37PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > Meanwhile, the whole content of the new free_winch(), including some syscalls > on the host, and various other stuff, is brought back under the > winch_handler_lock.
And? There's no particular problem with host system calls being under a lock. And the various other stuff is a kfree and a free_irq, which I don't think have a problem being called under a spinlock.
> I had carefully brought that stuff out keeping only the list access under the > lock, probably while fixing some "scheduling while atomic" warnings - once > the element is out of the list it's unreachable thus (IMHO) safely > accessible.
Probably? What in there is sensitive to being called under a lock?
> So, list_del should be brought out from free_winch, which would then become > callable without the spinlock held.
That would increase the amount of code, with no gain that I can see. The list_del would be duplicated, and the loop in winch_cleanup would have to drop and reacquire the lock around each call to free_winch.
Jeff - 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/
| |