lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:56:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So I think the best model would be something like this:
>
> - T1:
> mutex_lock(&lock)
> ...
> mutex_transfer(&lock)
>
> - T2:
> mutex_receive(&lock);
> ...
> mutex_unlock(&lock);
>
> where the "mutex_transfer() -> mutex_receive()" thing really makes it
> obvious that "now thread 1 is transferring the lock to thread 2".

Ah, but that's not at all what cross-release is about. Nobody really
does wonky ownership transfer of mutexes like that (although there might
be someone doing something with semaphores, I didn't check). Its to
allow detecting this deadlock:

mutex_lock(&lock)
wait_for_completion(&c);
mutex_lock(&lock);
complete(&c);

The completion doesn't have an owner to transfer.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-10 20:15    [W:0.289 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site