[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080610095122.37c41276@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:51:22 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [bug, 2.6.26-rc4/rc5] sporadic bootup crashes in
blk_lookup_devt()/prepare_namespace()
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:11:09 -0700,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 07:15:21PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > The driver core changes in -next convert class->sem to
> > class->p->class_mutex, which makes it non-accessible to drivers.
> > Most of the locking is easily done through converting to the class
> > iterator functions, but there are some cases where this is not going to
> > work:
> >
> > - The {register,unregister}_blkdev() functions, which don't directly
> > involve the class.
> > - The iterators for /proc/partitions, which take the lock in
> > part_start() and give it up again in part_stop().
> >
> > Maybe we need a possibilty for a driver to lock a class from outside?
>
> Why would that be needed? We protect walking the class lists internally
> with the lock, that should be sufficient, right?
What about the two functions I cited above? Don't we want them
protected by the same 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