lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: bad: scheduling while atomic!
On Sun, 15 June 2003 14:29:50 +0100, Russell King wrote:
>
> This instance seems to be caused by the following code in
> drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c:
>
> while (!tr->blkcore_priv->exiting) {
> spin_lock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
> ...
> spin_unlock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
> ...
> spin_lock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
> ...
> }
>
> It would be useful if we could balance the spin_locks with the
> spin_unlocks. 8)

How about this mindless guess?

Jörn

--
It's just what we asked for, but not what we want!
-- anonymous

--- linux-2.5.71/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c~mtd_spinlocks 2003-06-15 16:05:05.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.5.71/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c 2003-06-15 16:19:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -93,14 +93,13 @@
recalc_sigpending();
spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);

+ spin_lock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
while (!tr->blkcore_priv->exiting) {
struct request *req;
struct mtd_blktrans_dev *dev;
int res = 0;
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);

- spin_lock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
-
req = elv_next_request(rq);

if (!req) {
@@ -112,6 +111,7 @@
schedule();
remove_wait_queue(&tr->blkcore_priv->thread_wq, &wait);

+ spin_lock_irq(rq->queue_lock);
continue;
}

-
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 13:36    [W:0.034 / U:17.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site