On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Suresh Thiagarajan
suresh.thiagara...@pmcs.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/24, Suresh Thiagarajan wrote:
Below is a small pseudo code on protecting/serializing the flag for global
access.
struct temp
{
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/24, Suresh Thiagarajan wrote:
Below is a small pseudo code on protecting/serializing the flag for global
access.
struct temp
{
...
spinlock_t lock;
unsigned long lock_flags;
};
void
On 12/24, Suresh Thiagarajan wrote:
Below is a small pseudo code on protecting/serializing the flag for global
access.
struct temp
{
...
spinlock_t lock;
unsigned long lock_flags;
};
void my_lock(struct temp *t)
{
unsigned long flag; // thread-private
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/23, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Initially I thought that this is obviously wrong, irqsave/irqrestore
assume that flags is owned by the caller, not by the lock. And
iirc this was certainly wrong in the
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/23, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Initially I thought that this is obviously wrong, irqsave/irqrestore
assume that flags is owned by the
On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 09:13 +, Suresh Thiagarajan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/23, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Initially I thought that this is
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
In short, is this code
spinlock_t LOCK;
unsigned long FLAGS;
void my_lock(void)
{
spin_lock_irqsave(LOCK, FLAGS);
}
void my_unlock(void)
{
On 12/23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
In short, is this code
spinlock_t LOCK;
unsigned long FLAGS;
void my_lock(void)
{
spin_lock_irqsave(LOCK, FLAGS);
}
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Perhaps we should ask the maintainers upstream? Even if this works, I am
not sure this is _supposed_ to work. I mean, in theory spin_lock_irqave()
can be changed as, say
#define spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags)
On 12/23, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Initially I thought that this is obviously wrong, irqsave/irqrestore
assume that flags is owned by the caller, not by the lock. And
iirc this was certainly wrong in the past.
But when I look at spinlock.c it seems
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
However, the code above already has the users. Do you think it makes
sense to add something like
No. I think it makes sense to put a big warning on any users you find,
and fart in the general direction of any developer who
11 matches
Mail list logo
