Re: files_lock deadlock?

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:41 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > I disagree, it's a performance cost.
> > It's a lot easier to make remove_proc_entry() a might_sleep().. (I'm
> > surprised it isn't already btw given that it's vfs related and the vfs
> > is mostly semaphore based)
> 
> Well enough. But to my understanding using spin_lock implies that we can 
> _prove_ the lock won't be taken in softirq context, and that we will be 
> able to prevent new such paths to be introduced in the future. I wonder 
> if that's possible for this lock.

doing anything with files implies having a defined usercontext really,
and generally sleeping as well. So think this is quite safe.


-
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/