[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121130024842.5326d998.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:48:42 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, jmoyer@...hat.com, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] wait: add wait_event_lock_irq() interface
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:42:40 +0100 Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> New wait_event{_interruptible}_lock_irq{_cmd} macros added. This commit
> moves the private wait_event_lock_irq() macro from MD to regular wait
> includes, introduces new macro wait_event_lock_irq_cmd() instead of using
> the old method with omitting cmd parameter which is ugly and makes a use
> of new macros in the MD. It also introduces the _interruptible_ variant.
>
> The use of new interface is when one have a special lock to protect data
> structures used in the condition, or one also needs to invoke "cmd"
> before putting it to sleep.
>
> All new macros are expected to be called with the lock taken. The lock
> is released before sleep and is reacquired afterwards. We will leave the
> macro with the lock held.
>
> Note to DM: IMO this should also fix theoretical race on waitqueue while
> using simultaneously wait_event_lock_irq() and wait_event() because of
> lack of locking around current state setting and wait queue removal.
Does this fix the sparse warning which Fengguang just sent us?
--
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