Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:34:03 -0400
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:31PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Btw, lockd() takes BKL just after starting up and only implicitly drops
it when blocking. This seems very dangerous to me and badly wants
updating to some real locking scheme..
Can you elaborate on what is meant by lockd "blocking"? Blocking in
svc_recv() or during a SETLKW or ???
Blocking in kernel context means sleeping aka scheduling away. So in the
sentence above that means BKL is dropped once lockd sleeps on a
syncronization primitive the first time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up
- From: Mike Snitzer
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up
- Prev by Date: Re: Timer interrupt stops, causes soft lockup
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6.24.3][net] bug: TCP 3rd handshake abnormal timeouts
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up
- Next by thread: Typo report (this doesn't affect the behaviour of the code since the line is commented)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
