[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001182145060.2906@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:47:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: mcs7830 usb net: "scheduling while atomic" danger?
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> drivers/net/usb/mcs7830.c does several:
>
> mutex_lock(&dev->phy_mutex);
> /* write the MII command */
> ret = mcs7830_set_reg(dev, HIF_REG_PHY_CMD1, 2, cmd);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto out;
>
> /* wait for the data to become valid, should be within < 1ms */
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> ret = mcs7830_get_reg(dev, HIF_REG_PHY_CMD1, 2, cmd);
> if ((ret < 0) || (cmd[1] &
> HIF_REG_PHY_CMD2_READY_FLAG_BIT))
> break;
> ret = -EIO;
> msleep(1);
> }
>
>
> Forgive me, but doesn't that mutex_lock()/msleep() (ab)use mean
> risking a "scheduling while atomic"?
> (such as discussed in e.g.
> http://search.luky.org/linux-kernel.2004/msg92817.html )
No, that's different. You are allowed to sleep with a mutex held. The
thread is about spin_lock()/msleep().
spin_lock() is implicitly disabling preemption, mutex_lock() does not.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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