Am Sonntag, 11. Juli 2004 00:00 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > How much contention do we have, so that we cannot
> > live with a single lock per bus? It seems to me that most operations
> > happen in khubd's context anyway.
>
> I think that was answered earlier: most usbfs operations
> grab "the device's" lock. Some sysfs operations do too.
That tells us the there is a multitude of operations that need locking.
Not that these operations are common. Maybe except usbfs. Wouldn't
usbfs be happy with down_read()?
> Suspend/resume processing needs to grab it ... looks to me
> like lots of ways to create deadlocks, with just one lock.
How so? You'd of course always deadlock if you took the lock
recursively, but why couldn't that happen with finer locking that
isn't completely independent?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
