Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:22:52 +0000 | From | Jon Maloy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tipc: checking returns and Re: Possible Circular Locking in TIPC |
| |
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >If you are sure there is no circular locking possible >between these two functions and this entry->lock here >isn't endangered by other functions, you could try to >make lockdep "silent" like this: > > > write_lock_bh(&ref_table_lock); > if (tipc_ref_table.first_free) { > index = tipc_ref_table.first_free; > entry = &(tipc_ref_table.entries[index]); > index_mask = tipc_ref_table.index_mask; > /* take lock in case a previous user of entry still holds it */ > >- spin_lock_bh(&entry->lock, ); >+ local_bh_disable(); >+ spin_lock_nested(&entry->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); > > next_plus_upper = entry->data.next_plus_upper; > tipc_ref_table.first_free = next_plus_upper & index_mask; > reference = (next_plus_upper & ~index_mask) + index; > entry->data.reference = reference; > entry->object = object; > if (lock != 0) > *lock = &entry->lock; > >/* may stay as is or: */ >- spin_unlock_bh(&entry->lock); >+ spin_unlock(&entry->lock); >+ local_bh_enable(); > > } > write_unlock_bh(&ref_table_lock); > > > > Looks like an acceptable solution. I will try this. Thanks ///Jon
- 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/
| |