lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 22 Apr 2003 10:21:38 +0100
From viro@parcelfa ...
SubjectRe: inconsistent usage of
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:11:11AM +0200, Heiko.Rabe@InVision.de wrote:
> I found inconsistent behavoir between SMP oand none SMP kernels using spin
> locks inside driver programming
> As first an simple example:
> 
> static spinlock_t        qtlock               = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> 
> void foo()
> {
>      unsigned long  local_flags;
>      spin_lock_irqsave (&qtlock, local_flags);
>      spin_lock_irqsave (&qtlock, local_flags);
> }
> 
> Calling the function foo() works proper in none SMP kernels. I assume, the

... only because spinlocks are no-op on UP.

> spinlocks internaly will be initialized as
> recursive semaphore as default. So it is possible to aquire it more than
> once by the same thread.

Spinlocks are *not* recursive.  The code above is a bug - it's just that
on non-SMP it doesn't get caught.

Spinlock is a mutex, not a recursive sempahore.
-
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 12:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2008