>>>>> " " == kuznet <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru> writes:
> Hello!
>> Deadlock - in exactly the same way as with the xprt code...
> Soooory! Delete from the picture all except for containing
> QDIO:
> (Call QDIO bottom half code) spin_lock(&QDIO_lock);
> <QDIO hard
> interrupt>
-> spin_lock(&QDIO_lock)
> (spins...)
> with the same result. No help of nfs is required. :-)
> So, you have drawn wrong picture.
>From the mail I received, I gathered that they were protected against
this. The hard interrupt could only occur on another processor.
In any case, my point is that the xprt stuff does *nothing* that is
not also done in the fasync code. If a spinlock deadlock scenario is
possible in one, then it is also possible in the other.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:24 EST