![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:25:39AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Oh, yes, I have spent hours and hours trying to untangle tty locking > > and it isn't simple. > > Oops. Could you quickly summarize your findings so far ? I only found more confusions - I can't figure how tty_files list is locked - sure files_lock is supposed to protect it but there are deletions done without any lock. Another thing that needs looking into is to avoid or reduce use of the tasklist_lock there. > > What does that BKL protect ? I can't seem to ever figure our if > > all the races are plugged or not. > > Well, one has to start somewhere. Just starting by plugging most of the > obvious races, then the more subtle ones can be attacked later. > > The idea of the BKL was to protect the protect context code against > itself (code lock) and also the few global data structures that > are only accessed from process context (like the tty drivers list) In that case would it not be better to replace all BKLs by a single tty lock ? > > I attached my current patch, it isn't too well tested however and needs > more work. > > Mostly just adds lock_kernel()s to the high level code so far and a few comments. Cool, I will start off by testing this stuff. Thanks Dipankar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||