[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1208247869.2648.27.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:24:29 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 08:12 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> As I wrote in one of the comments, we have places in the kernel which
> know that even though they're in a non-sleeping context, there is at
> least one more token left in the semaphore. One place this bit me was
> in start_kernel(). We disable interrupts and then call lock_kernel()
> which calls down(). Since we're in start_kernel(), we know there's
> nothing else running and this is perfectly safe. But a might_sleep()
> would warn bogusly.
I would have thought they'd use down_trylock() in that case.
--
dwmw2
--
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