Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:42:35 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git |
| |
> I think we could possibly add a "__might_sleep()" to _lock_kernel(). It > doesn't really sleep, but it's invalid to take the kernel lock in an > atomic region, so __might_sleep() might be the right thing anyway.
It's only invalid if you don't already hold the lock. The old tty code worked because every path into tty_fasync already held the lock ! That specific case - taking it the first time should definitely __might_sleep().
Mind you it's probably still rather dumb and would be a good debugging aid for -next to be able to warn on all offences if only to catch this stuff for the future BKL removal work.
Alan
| |