Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I think we could possibly add a "__might_sleep()" to _lock_kernel(). It 
> > doesn't really sleep, but it's invalid to take the kernel lock in an 
> > atomic region, so __might_sleep() might be the right thing anyway.
> 
> It's only invalid if you don't already hold the lock.

True.

> The old tty code worked because every path into tty_fasync already held 
> the lock ! That specific case - taking it the first time should 
> definitely __might_sleep().

That would give us at least somewhat better debugging. And it's a very 
natural thing to do. IOW, just something like the appended.

But maybe it complains about valid (but unusual) things. For example, it's 
not strictly speaking _wrong_ to take the kernel lock while preemption is 
disabled, even though it's a really bad idea.

Anybody willing to be the guinea-pig?

		Linus

---
 lib/kernel_lock.c |    4 +++-
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kernel_lock.c b/lib/kernel_lock.c
index 4ebfa5a..5526b46 100644
--- a/lib/kernel_lock.c
+++ b/lib/kernel_lock.c
@@ -122,8 +122,10 @@ void __lockfunc _lock_kernel(const char *func, const char *file, int line)
 
 	trace_lock_kernel(func, file, line);
 
-	if (likely(!depth))
+	if (likely(!depth)) {
+		might_sleep();
 		__lock_kernel();
+	}
 	current->lock_depth = depth;
 }
 
--
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/