![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Roman, > I have an idea what might have happened. You don't advance the pending > state, if the signal isn't queued, so that the pending state is screwed up > afterwards. Although I don't see how it could crash the kernel (it has > only the potential to mess up the timer queue via hrtimer_forward() a > bit), but I don't know what other patches were applied. Good catch, but I dont see how it would trigger the bug. > For example no current user restarts an active timer, which could be used > to simplify the locking. How does this simplify the locking ? It just removes the hrtimer_cancel() call in hrtimer_start() and makes the switch_hrtimer_base() code a bit simpler. The general locking rules would be still the same and I dont see increased flexibility at all. > If we tightened a bit what a user is allowed to > do, we could gain flexibility on the other side, e.g. allow drivers to > create timer sources or how to integrate cpu timer. -ENOPARSE. Can you please explain what "allow drivers to create timer sources" means and why the above locking is in the way ? tglx - 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: 2006-03-16 10:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||