From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1C5Tiq-0005vK-Ug for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:32:40 -0700 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6] helo=mail.osdl.org) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C5Tio-0003xQ-5A for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:32:39 -0700 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP Message-ID: <20040909113228.M1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20040908172503.384144933@zion.localdomain> <20040908111204.I1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>; from blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:02:19PM +0200 Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:28 -0700 To: BlaisorBlade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Chris Wright , akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266721AbUIIShc (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:37:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266674AbUIISdr (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:33:47 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:23761 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266391AbUIIScb (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:32:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:28 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: BlaisorBlade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Chris Wright , 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 Message-ID: <20040909113228.M1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20040908172503.384144933@zion.localdomain> <20040908111204.I1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200409092002.19134.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>; from blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:02:19PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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