lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.337 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site