Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 02 Oct 2000 13:06:42 +0200 | From | Manfred <> | Subject | Re: set_current_state() vs current->state |
| |
Andrea wrote: > In short you need set_current_state(x) when you do something that relies on the > ordering like: > > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) > if (event_happened_meanwhile) > break; > schedule();
Btw, even if the code is protected with a spinlock you must use set_current_state, spin_unlock() is only a partial memory barrier (at least on i386 and ia64).
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) /* __set_current_state() can lock up */ spin_unlock(&lock); if (event_happened_meanwhile) break; schedule();
-- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |