Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: recursive locks in kernel? | Date | Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:50:52 +0930 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9909240520080.37934025-100000@csemt83.cse.iitk.ac.in> you write: > and some of them not. Now the problem arises if this lower level function > also wants to lock the same data because it does not know whether the data is > already locked by some higher level function or not. If it just locks it > blindly then this could lead to a deadlock.
It can be a problem: there are cases where a `raw' version of a function is required (usually __xxx) which doesn't grab the lock.
However, if your calls are so convoluted that you don't realize that a public lock will be grabbed, you've got more subtle deadlock problems with grabbing locks out of order, which can't be hacked around by making locks recursive.
My 2c, Rusty. -- Hacking time.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |