From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:23:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afc8507f991e348bee68140f42161d49@proxima.alt.za> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3b7a16b6d7ba18893953f5b1c9978f05@vitanuova.com>
> it's to allow the use during reset of a given driver's
> standard functions that normally must qlock, to avoid requiring two copies
> of them, with and without the qlock.
>
> after reset, it's illegal to call qlock without a process (notably
> in an interrupt function), as it previously was.
I'm willing to credit the validity of this, but I believe then that it
ought to be more explicit. It seems to me that having a situation
where a panic can ensue if a lock is already taken is too risky. Is
it possible to count the instances of such qlock() invocations in the
present kernel code and find out how common the problem really is?
Or should one simply treat such invocations as innocuous and just omit
connecting a user process to the queue when no user process is
specified, if the lock is taken? That sounds positively explosive!
++L
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-18 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-18 5:50 Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 5:53 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 8:11 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 8:35 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-18 9:20 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-18 10:48 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 15:10 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 16:46 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 18:01 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:29 ` C H Forsyth
2010-11-18 18:23 ` Lucio De Re [this message]
2010-11-18 18:33 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:43 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 18:54 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 19:01 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 19:27 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:03 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 5:57 ` Lucio De Re
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-16 4:21 lucio
2010-11-16 4:40 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 5:03 ` lucio
2010-11-16 5:11 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-16 5:18 ` lucio
2010-11-16 5:28 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-16 6:47 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-16 13:53 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 18:03 ` lucio
2010-11-17 4:08 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 4:18 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 4:37 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 4:43 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 5:22 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-17 6:45 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:03 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:09 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 5:33 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-17 6:48 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:03 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 14:40 ` Russ Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=afc8507f991e348bee68140f42161d49@proxima.alt.za \
--to=lucio@proxima.alt.za \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).