Messages in this thread | | | From | "Manfred Spraul" <> | Subject | Re: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48 | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:29:17 +0100 |
| |
From: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@transmeta.com> > > spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock); > ... > spin_unlock(&io_request_lock); > ... > __sti(); > some callers of sleep_on() do that to reduce the race:
spin_unlock(&io_request_lock); <<<<<< wake-up could arrive. sleep_on(&wait_queue); spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock);
Actually I would prefer if we could add a big assert to sleep_on() in 2.5.early: sleep_on is a very simple function with a nice name, and thus many drivers use it without proper locking [global_cli or lock_kernel].
-- Manfred
- 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/
| |