On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 08:15:05AM +0200, Armin Schindler wrote:
> > You are never allowed to sleep with a spinlock held, no matter if it's
> > _bh, _irq or just a plain spin_lock(). Doing so creates the possibility of
> > deadlock (assuming your lock actually is necessary and you're not
> > serialized already), current 2.5 btw has debugging code which checks for
> > this bug.
> >
> > So this code was buggy in earlier 2.4 as well, you'll have to create your
> > proc entry outside the protected region or use a semaphore instead of a
> > spinlock.
>
> Okay, I wasn't aware of create_proc_entry() must to be called
> from user-context and outside any locks.
>
> But anyway, isn't the statement "in_interrupt() != 0" somehow wrong
> when just the bh's are disabled ?
You must not schedule with bottom halves disabled.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:27 EST