Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP

[BlaisorBlade]

On Thursday 09 September 2004 20:32, Chris Wright wrote:
> * BlaisorBlade (blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 September 2004 20:12, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > * blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx (blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > > Trivial: don't lock the queue spinlock when called from the request
> > > > function. Since the faulty function must use spinlock in another
> > > > case, double-case it. And since we will never use both functions
> > > > together, let no object code be shared between them.
> > >
> > > Why not add a helper which locks around the core function.  Then either
> > > call helper or core function directly depending on locking needs?
> >
> > I'm happy with whatever is nicer.
>
> The way I outlined is nicer as it avoids all that conditional locking.
> I can do a full patch if you like.
Yes, thanks a lot for your help.
Bye
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/