[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy_y45feJNJgFa=Taks0GpxiXEMJexhjVVYH-vVFkPmkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:12:57 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Seba <jason.seba42@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>, Jack Wang <xjtuwjp@...il.com>,
Suresh Thiagarajan <Suresh.Thiagarajan@...s.com>,
Viswas G <Viswas.G@...s.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"JBottomley@...allels.com" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
Vasanthalakshmi Tharmarajan
<Vasanthalakshmi.Tharmarajan@...s.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spinlock_irqsave() && flags (Was: pm80xx: Spinlock fix)
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> In short, is this code
>
> spinlock_t LOCK;
> unsigned long FLAGS;
>
> void my_lock(void)
> {
> spin_lock_irqsave(&LOCK, FLAGS);
> }
>
> void my_unlock(void)
> {
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&LOCK, FLAGS);
> }
>
> correct or not?
Hell no. "flags" needs to be a thread-private variable, or at least
protected some way (ie the above could work if everything is inside a
bigger lock, to serialize access to FLAGS).
Linus
--
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