![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Keith Owens wrote: > Your patch opens a window where data that was protected by the disabled > interrupt on entry becomes unprotected while waiting for the lock and > can therefore change. > > It could be that I am worrying unnecessarily, after all any code that > calls spin_lock_irq() with interrupts already disabled is probably > wrong to start off with. But it does need to be considered as a > possible failure mode. Granted there might be code like that, i'll throw in some debugging code locally to test for such a condition. It wouldn't necessarily be a bug but a very uncool way of obfuscating the locking. Thanks, Zwane - 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 14:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||