![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:44, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > --- linux-2.5.64-unwashed/include/linux/brlock.h 5 Mar 2003 05:07:54 -0000 1.1.1.1 > +++ linux-2.5.64-unwashed/include/linux/brlock.h 9 Mar 2003 23:42:26 -0000 > @@ -85,8 +85,7 @@ > if (idx >= __BR_END) > __br_lock_usage_bug(); > > - preempt_disable(); > - _raw_read_lock(&__brlock_array[smp_processor_id()][idx]); > + read_lock(&__brlock_array[smp_processor_id()][idx]); > } This is wrong. We have to disable preemption prior to reading smp_processor_id(). Otherwise we may lock/unlock the wrong processor's brlock. The above as you changed it is equivalent to: cpu = smp_processor_id(); /* do not want to preempt here, but we can! */ preempt_disable(); _raw_read_lock(&__brlock_array[cpu][idx]); And what we had, and what we need, is: preempt_disable(); cpu = smp_processor_id(); _raw_read_lock(&__brlock_array[cpu][idx]); In other words, we need to ensure preemption is disabled prior to calling smp_processor_id(). We also do something similar with the write patch in lib/brlock.c, but for different reason: to disable preemption once and not NR_CPUS times. The rest of the patch looks fine. :) Robert Love - 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 13:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||