lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-05 18:29    [W:0.104 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site