Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:28 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP |
| |
* BlaisorBlade (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote: > On Wednesday 08 September 2004 20:12, Chris Wright wrote: > > * blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote: > > > Trivial: don't lock the queue spinlock when called from the request > > > function. Since the faulty function must use spinlock in another case, > > > double-case it. And since we will never use both functions together, let > > > no object code be shared between them. > > > > Why not add a helper which locks around the core function. Then either > > call helper or core function directly depending on locking needs? > I'm happy with whatever is nicer.
The way I outlined is nicer as it avoids all that conditional locking. I can do a full patch if you like.
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
| |