[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874nybqo0o.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:00:31 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Miche Baker-Harvey <miche@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Eric Northrup <digitaleric@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hvc_init(): Enforce one-time initialization.
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:45:04 -0800, Miche Baker-Harvey <miche@...gle.com> wrote:
> hvc_init() must only be called once, and no thread should continue with hvc_alloc()
> until after initialization is complete. The original code does not enforce either
> of these requirements. A new mutex limits entry to hvc_init() to a single thread,
> and blocks all later comers until it has completed.
>
> This patch fixes multiple crash symptoms.
No, it doesn't: not now your previous double-hvc_init patch has been
reverted.
It's easy to show this is the case though: replace mutex_lock() with:
if (!mutex_trylock()) {
WARN(1, "hvc_console: mutex is stopping us!\n");
mutex_lock();
}
If you get that warning, then your mutex is doing something.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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