linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1276507378.2552.39.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:22:58 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 08:39 +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> All implementations so far use spin_lock_irq_save()!

Nothing prevents your implementation to be a tad smarter.

> How would you be able to sleep with a mutex held?
> If you hold a lock you must not sleep, no matter what sort of lock it
> is. 

You can perfectly sleep with a mutex held. You -do- have to be careful
of course to ensure you aren't going to do silly thing like re-enter and
try to take it twice, or A->B B->A deadlocks, but in the typical case of
wanting to use a msleep rather than udelay, it works very well :-)

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/