Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:53, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:12, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> > >  [<e018e139>] queuecommand+0x70/0x7c [usb_storage] (24)
> > 
> > As I already pointed out, this is a problem due to up(sema) in
> > queuecommand. That's one of the semaphore abuse points, which needs to
> > be fixed. 
> > 
> > The problem is that semaphores are hold by Process A and released by
> > Process B, which makes Ingo's checks trigger
> 
> That's utter crap, it's perfectly valid use.

It's not!

>From the code:

         init_MUTEX_LOCKED(&(us->sema));

This is used to wait for command completion and therefor we have the
completion API. It was used this way because the ancestor of completion
(sleep_on) was racy !

tglx




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/