[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] uio: uio_pdrv_genirq V2
Alan Cox wrote:
> > > + else if (!irq_on && !priv->irq_disabled)
> > > + disable_irq(dev_info->irq);
> > I'm not sure if this is a problem on SMP. Should you use
> > disable_irq_nosync here, too? Probably it's OK.
> That one will also deadlock.
Can you explain why? I think irqcontrol is only called in task context.
I only see one possible deadlock and that's disable_irq being called
while the irq is IRQ_INPROGRESS on the same cpu. I'm always willing to

> The easiest fix is probably to use test_and_set and friends for each I/O
> operation.
Actually using spinlock + irq_disabled variable is new in V2 of this
patch. Don't know why this changed, though.

> You would then not need the lock to protect ->irq_disabled.
> Propogating that throughout means your user space has to handle the case
> of an IRQ arriving after disable returns but would be a fair bit saner I
> think ?
I think I didn't understand you right here, with the lock this can
happen, too, doesn't it?

Best regards

Uwe Kleine-König, Software Engineer
Digi International GmbH Branch Breisach, Küferstrasse 8, 79206 Breisach, Germany
Tax: 315/5781/0242 / VAT: DE153662976 / Reg. Amtsgericht Dortmund HRB 13962
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-10 12:33    [W:0.101 / U:9.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site