> is "locked" out trying to acquire the semaphore. This can't
> happen since interrupts are disabled. But this line of
> thought is probably not what you had in mind, since no
> matter what code has the semaphore (interrupts disabled or
> not), an interrupt should not be locked out trying to
> acquire a semaphore unconditionally.
Doing a down() for a semaphore in an interrupt is definitely not right.
A down_trylock() is quite legitimate so the code shouldnt corrupt the
irq state for that one - I agree. That assumes down_trylock is irq safe
[ie semops are irq safe] which is another matter altogether.
Calling down in an IRQ is clearly a no-no
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:14 EST