lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-05 22:38    [W:0.031 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site