From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263851AbUHDKac (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:30:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264097AbUHDKab (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:30:31 -0400 Received: from tapuz.safe-mail.net ([212.68.149.115]:36327 "EHLO tapuz.safe-mail.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264045AbUHDKaS (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:30:18 -0400 X-SMType: Regular X-SMRef: N1-fn04EQGj Message-ID: <4110BAC7.5010209@safe-mail.net> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:30:31 +0800 From: Liu Tao User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Neukum CC: lkml Subject: Re: [patch] Add a writer prior lock methord for rwlock References: <4110A7AF.2060903@safe-mail.net> <200408041145.07452.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <200408041145.07452.oliver@neukum.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oliver Neukum wrote: >Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 11:09 schrieb Liu Tao: > > >>The patch adds the write_forcelock() methord, which has higher priority than >>read_lock() and write_lock(). The original read_lock() and write_lock() >>is not >>touched, and the unlock methord is still write_unlock(); >> >> > >It seems to me that with this a recursive read_lock() with >a read lock already held may deadlock. > > Regards > > Oliver > Can you give an example path? Thanks