Re: No locking is needed ... why?

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 08:50:01 EST

Next message: Nikita Danilov: "Re: [LTP] VFS: brelse: started after 2.4.10-ac7"
Previous message: bill davidsen: "Re: Context switch times"
In reply to: BALBIR SINGH: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [PATCH] again: Re: Athlon kernel crash (i686 works)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, BALBIR SINGH wrote:

> >Each CPU has its own data structure here. This means no
> >other CPU will touch this queue (they have their own)
> >so there is nobody we could ever race against.
>
> We would still require locking or interrupt disabling if this data is used
> from an interrupt context (due to re-enterency issues), wouldn't we Rik?

I think this code is only run from interrupt context anyway.

regards,

Rik

-- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- 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/

Next message: Nikita Danilov: "Re: [LTP] VFS: brelse: started after 2.4.10-ac7"
Previous message: bill davidsen: "Re: Context switch times"
In reply to: BALBIR SINGH: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [PATCH] again: Re: Athlon kernel crash (i686 works)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:24 EST