From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 11/20] unci: add netlink exec Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:25:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20170706172536.6d8fd73f@xeon-e3> References: <20170630165140.59594-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170704161337.45926-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170704161337.45926-12-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170705120703.77efb263@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Anatoly Burakov To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com (mail-pf0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F62C8 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:25:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c73so8561193pfk.2 for ; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:25:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:45:48 +0100 Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > Blocking for completion with mutex held? > > Sleeping with mutex held is not allowed in Linux. > > > > You will see this if you run with lockdep and all the other kernel debug > > config options. > > Thank you for the review, > > I will send a new version addressing all comments. > > Thanks, > ferruh > I was wrong, it is okay to sleep with mutex held. You might find it easier to use a spin_lock and waitqueue directly via wait_event_interruptible_locked