Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:27:27 +0000 | From | John Levon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Notifier for significant events on i386 |
| |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:13:37PM +0530, Vamsi Krishna S . wrote:
> Unless I am missing something, notifiers have always been racy. > No amount of locking you do in individual modules to prevent > races will help as the notifier chain is walked inside > notifier_call_chain() in kernel/sys.c. One would need to > add some form of locking there (*) so that users of notifier > chains need not worry about races/locking at all.
There are notifiers being used that sleep inside the called notifiers.
You could easily make a __notifier_call_chain that is lockless and another one that readlocks the notifier_lock ...
regards john -- "Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack away on a complicated piece of code and avoid total anarchy has never managed a software project." - Andy Tanenbaum - 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/
| |