Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:20:08 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] generic work queue handling, workqueue-2.5.39-D6 |
| |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> Ingo, > > Is it possible that queue_task() handlers in earlier driver code may > have depended on implicit serialization against corresponding timer > handlers since each of those is run from BHs ? If so, isn't that an > issue now with no BHs ? Or, is it safe to assume that general smp-safety > code in the drivers will take care of serialization between timers and > work-queues ?
yes, this is true - such drivers need to use spinlocks. But since basically every driver abstraction within the kernel already necessiates per-driver spinlocks, this should be straightforward in most cases.
Ingo
- 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/
| |