On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 06:35:59PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Saturday 29 January 2005 06:25, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:50:55AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > > I'm very sorry about the locking, but the thing grew up in times of > > > > kernel 2.0, which didn't require any locking. There are a few possible > > > > > > Incorrect. You have blocking allocations in critical areas and they > > > required locking all way back. > > > > Ok. I see a problem where input_register_device() calls input handler > > connect methods, which do kmalloc(). This would be bad even on 2.0. > > > > Anything else? I believe the ->open()/->release() methods are still > > protected. > > > > evdev, tsdev, mousedev, joydev need to protect their client lists because > interrupt could try to deliver event to already deleted device (client)
Oh, of course. The protection doesn't apply to the event routine. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
