[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AD59AC3.9020807@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:32:51 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:23:53 -0400
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> --- a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
>> @@ -71,7 +71,13 @@ extern void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
>>
>> static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> {
>> - return (sem->activity != 0);
>> + int ret = 1;
>> +
>> + if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
>> + ret = (sem->activity != 0);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> + }
>> + return ret;
>> }
>
> a) probably to large to be inlined
Yeah, maybe, I forgot spin_trylock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq
are macros.
>
> b) the function will now cause bugs if called under
> local_irq_disable(). That wasn't the case before. Fixable via
> spin_lock_irqsave().
>
> In the present kernel there don't appear to be any irqs-off callers.
> There may of course be some out-of-tree ones which will get bitten by
> this semantic change.
>
> If we decide to leave this new rule in place then we should add a
> WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) to prevent hitting people with a nasty, subtle
> bug.
>
> Methinks that _irqsave() is better.
My bad, I misunderstood spin_lock_irqsave(), thus used spin_lock_irq().
:( Will update the patch now.
Thanks!
--
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