lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: files_lock deadlock?
From
Date
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:41 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > I disagree, it's a performance cost.
> > It's a lot easier to make remove_proc_entry() a might_sleep().. (I'm
> > surprised it isn't already btw given that it's vfs related and the vfs
> > is mostly semaphore based)
>
> Well enough. But to my understanding using spin_lock implies that we can
> _prove_ the lock won't be taken in softirq context, and that we will be
> able to prevent new such paths to be introduced in the future. I wonder
> if that's possible for this lock.

doing anything with files implies having a defined usercontext really,
and generally sleeping as well. So think this is quite safe.


-
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: 2005-08-12 09:10    [W:0.048 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site