On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 19:53, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> This non-reentrant stuff hurts my head. Another patch down the
>> toilet, I guess.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 08:18:04PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> No, I think you have a good idea. Pete is right, though, the current
> interrupt is disabled... but normally the other interrupts are still
> enabled.
> Your ideas #2, #3, and #4 are good.
> Because once the lock is tainted, you still want to ensure process
> context disables interrupts before grabbing the lock.
> Robert Love
I'll go figure out why before posting a follow-up. This is not doing
what I wanted it to because the only one I originally wanted was (1),
having to do with interrupt-time recursion on rwlocks and writer
starvation caused by it.
Bill
-
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 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST