[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
> There are some real ones there.  The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and
> semaphores are false positives.
> lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller
> performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements
> between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write().

Ah. I actually knew that. Embarassing. Thanks for pointing it out;
I'll make the change.

BTW, are there known deadlocks (harmless or otherwise)? Debugging
the checker is a bit hard since false negatives are silent...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.080 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site