[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PATCH pc_keyb and q40_keyb cleanup
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:26:23AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Well, the -spin lock- exists for serialization. My question is.... Why
> > does pc_keyb irq handler disable local irqs for this case? What is the
> > race/deadlock that exists with spin_lock in the irq handler, but does
> > not exist with spin_lock_irqsave in the irq handler?
> As said the save part isn't necessary.
> This is a trace of the deadlock:
> irq 2 runs
> keyboard_interrupt
> irqs are been left enabled
> spin_lock()
> here irq 12 runs
> keyboard_interrupt
> here doesn't matter if irqs are enabled or disabled of course
> spin_lock() -> dealdock

Thanks a bunch Andrea. That's the piece I was looking for -- I didn't
know that two different irqs were calling the same code. Learn
something new every day :)

I wonder if q40_keyb has the same thing to worry about....

Jeff Garzik | The difference between laziness and
Building 1024 | prioritization is the end result.
MandrakeSoft |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.088 / U:1.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site