[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610093049.GG27280@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:30:49 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > => only a 'there be dragons' mental marker
>
> Right, my reply was that I couldn't convince myself unlock order
> could make a difference, but clearly I can easily have missed
> something subtle.
>
> > and i have to say that when i found a boot lockup during testing
> > i was not surprised very much :)
>
> But you found a lockup on the second patch, not this one.
Yeah, it's not like my mental markers are overly precise! ;-)
> Also, this patch is important for #3, where we want to take
> logbuf_lock under the semaphore internal lock, that too would
> preclude us doing that up() in the old location.
Yeah. I'm not against it or anything (hey i suggested the whole
thing), but i'll be testing this through carefully.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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