[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070919214110.5d832f28@lappy>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:41:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs
rcu_read_lock()
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:49:56 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov"
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/07, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > PS to previous -- any problem with inserting rcu_read_lock() and
> > rcu_read_unlock() around the portion of the IRQ handler that has
> > these accesses?
> >
>
> I guess I could but it is an extra lock that needs to be managed and
> given the fact that it is not really needed (other to make a newly
> developed tool happy) I am hestsant to do that.
As is, these sites are a bug in -rt and we'll need to fix them anyway.
As for the code you pointed me to, the i8042 driver, it seems to play
way to funny tricks for a simple 'slow' driver.
If you replace the spin_lock() + sync_sched(), with rcu_read_lock() +
rcu_call() it should work again without adding an extra 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