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

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 12:11, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 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 !
> > 
> > I didn't look at the USB code, I'm just saying that it's perfectly valid
> > use of a semaphore the pattern you describe (process A holding it,
> > process B releasing it).
> 
> Yeah, for a semaphore it is, but not for a mutex.
> 
> IMHO, this is not clearly seperated and therefor produces a lot of
> confusion.

Semaphore and mutex has always been the same thing in Linux. Apparently
this isn't so in Ingos tree, you should make a clear distinction on
which you are discussing.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
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/