From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:53118 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885AbZAYVRN (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:17:13 -0500 From: Matthias Schwarzott To: Patrick Boettcher Subject: Re: RFC - Flexcop Streaming watchdog (VDSB) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:17:08 +0100 Cc: linux-dvb@linuxtv.org, Linux Media Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200901252217.08848.zzam@gentoo.org> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Freitag, 16. Januar 2009, Patrick Boettcher wrote: I am looking forward to test your patch. > There a struct-work-watchdog looking at the number of irq-received while > having PIDs active in the PID-filter. If no IRQs are received, the > pid-filter-system is reset. > Very good idea. > > Before asking to pull the patch I'd like to discuss an issue: my > work-around is iterating over the pid-filter-list in the dvb_demux. I'm > doing this in the struct-work-callback. In dvb_demux.c I see that this > list is protected with a spinlock. When I now try to take the spinlock in > the work-function I'll get a nice message saying, that I cannot do take a > spinlock in a work-function. > > What can I do? What is the proper way to protect access to this list? Is > it needed at all? I thought this is a perfectly legetimate usage of spinlocks. What is the exact wording of the message. Is it a message of lockdep, or another kind of message? Does it get better using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock_irq ? Regards Matthias