Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:02:41 +0200 | From | Martin Wilck <> | Subject | Re: files_lock deadlock? |
| |
Alexander Nyberg wrote:
> spin_lock_irqsave is only needed when a lock is taken both in normal > context and in interrupt context. Clearly this lock is not intended to > be taken in interrupt context.
According to Rusty's unreliable guide (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/c214.html) if some code can be called from user context as well as in a softirq, at least spin_lock_bh() is necessary. I am not sure whether that may be true for the code that modifies files_lock.
> I'll take a look, that spinlock debugging information unfortunately > doesn't give too much info :|
Thanks!
Martin
-- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck@Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy - 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/
| |