lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 4/4] firewire: add mem1394
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 12:35 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 23:43 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>
>>>+ spin_lock(&dev_list_lock);
>>
>>Stupid question: are you sure that something coming from an interrupt
>>handler won't try to grab this lock? For example from a cable unplug?
>
> Yes, I'm pretty sure (but I hope some of the firewire experts will chime
> in) -- but if you unplug or anything the node only goes into 'limbo' and
> afaict if it is ever cleaned up then that comes from a thread context.

The lock will only be taken in non-atomic context. In particular, if a
mem1394 device is to be removed after cable unplug, the code will be run
by knodemgrd.

What is more recommendable for mutual exclusion in non-atomic context
(here also with very low probality of lock contention, given the current
implementation of ieee1394) --- a mutex or a spinlock?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- --=- --=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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: 2006-02-05 14:05    [W:0.093 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans