On 30 Jan 2002, Martin Wirth wrote:
>
>void combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x)
.....
> } else <---
> x->owner=current;
> spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
Uugh, the else is wrong of course. The owner has to be set in any
case.(Just deleted some debugging code and reformatted a bit to quick
:))
A further note: Although the combilock shares some advantages with a
spin-lock (no unnecessary scheduling for short time locking) it may
behave like a semaphore on entry also if you call combi_spin_lock.
For example
spin_lock(&slock);
combi_spin_lock(&clock);
is a BUG because combi_spin_lock may sleep while holding slock!
Would be nice if there were some comments.
Martin Wirth
-
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 Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:35 EST