lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.080 / U:8.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site