[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:32:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Peterson <joe@...rush.com>
Cc: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY: Fix loss of echoed characters (2nd follow-on PATCH
attached)
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:11:46 -0600
Joe Peterson <joe@...rush.com> wrote:
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->echo_lock, flags);
> lock_kernel();
Taking a spinlock outside lock_kernel() isn't good, and is quite unusual.
- It might be ab/ba deadlockable (I didn't check) (I trust you always
test with lockdep enabled?)
- will make Ingo unhappy when he applies his "make lock_kernel use
mutex_lock" patch (if it's still around).
- will probably give the -rt guys conniptions.
swapping the above two lines would presumably be an easy fix, but one
wonders whether we still need lock_kernel() in there once you've added
this lock.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists