[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287495832.16971.368.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:43:52 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
ksummit-2010-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] [v2] Remaining BKL users, what to do
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:36 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [trimming Cc list]
>
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I think we also need to cover the PREEMPT case too. But that could be a
> > compile time check, since you can't boot a preempt kernel and make it
> > non preempt.
>
> Right. Can we turn the lock_kernel() into preempt_disable() in these
> drivers when we know we never run on SMP?
I'm not sure that will work. A holder of the BKL can call schedule or
even a mutex. The schedule code will drop the BKL and re-enable
preemption. Unless the code is known not to schedule while holding BKL,
we would need to open code the preempt_enable() around the locations
that the code may schedule.
-- Steve
--
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