From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: BlaisorBlade <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040909113228.M1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>; from blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:02:19PM +0200
* BlaisorBlade (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 September 2004 20:12, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote:
> > > Trivial: don't lock the queue spinlock when called from the request
> > > function. Since the faulty function must use spinlock in another case,
> > > double-case it. And since we will never use both functions together, let
> > > no object code be shared between them.
> >
> > Why not add a helper which locks around the core function. Then either
> > call helper or core function directly depending on locking needs?
> I'm happy with whatever is nicer.
The way I outlined is nicer as it avoids all that conditional locking.
I can do a full patch if you like.
thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: BlaisorBlade <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040909113228.M1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>; from blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:02:19PM +0200
* BlaisorBlade (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 September 2004 20:12, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it (blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it) wrote:
> > > Trivial: don't lock the queue spinlock when called from the request
> > > function. Since the faulty function must use spinlock in another case,
> > > double-case it. And since we will never use both functions together, let
> > > no object code be shared between them.
> >
> > Why not add a helper which locks around the core function. Then either
> > call helper or core function directly depending on locking needs?
> I'm happy with whatever is nicer.
The way I outlined is nicer as it avoids all that conditional locking.
I can do a full patch if you like.
thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-09 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-08 17:25 [uml-devel] [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP blaisorblade_spam
2004-09-08 17:25 ` blaisorblade_spam
2004-09-08 18:12 ` [uml-devel] " Chris Wright
2004-09-08 18:12 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 18:02 ` [uml-devel] " BlaisorBlade
2004-09-09 18:02 ` BlaisorBlade
2004-09-09 18:32 ` Chris Wright [this message]
2004-09-09 18:32 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 18:44 ` BlaisorBlade
2004-09-09 18:44 ` BlaisorBlade
2004-09-09 19:29 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 19:29 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-10 19:01 ` BlaisorBlade
2004-09-10 19:01 ` BlaisorBlade
2004-09-09 7:35 ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-09 7:35 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040909113228.M1973@build.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.