Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:53:53 -0600 (MDT) | From | Thunder from the hill <> | Subject | Re: question on spinlocks |
| |
Hi,
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:27:53PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > is the following sequence legal ? > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(...); > > ... > > spin_unlock(...); > > schedule(); > > spin_lock(...); > > ... > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(...); > > No; spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore and spin_lock/spin_unlock > have to be used in matching pairs.
If it was his least problem! He'll run straight into a "schedule w/IRQs disabled" bug.
Thunder -- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .- --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.- --./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-
- 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/
|  |