Re: + uml-sigwinch-handling-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree

[Jeff Dike]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:54:37PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Meanwhile, the whole content of the new free_winch(), including some syscalls
> on the host, and various other stuff, is brought back under the 
> winch_handler_lock.

And?  There's no particular problem with host system calls being under
a lock.  And the various other stuff is a kfree and a free_irq, which
I don't think have a problem being called under a spinlock.

> I had carefully brought that stuff out keeping only the list access under the
> lock, probably while fixing some "scheduling while atomic" warnings - once 
> the element is out of the list it's unreachable thus (IMHO) safely 
> accessible.

Probably?  What in there is sensitive to being called under a lock?

> So, list_del should be brought out from free_winch, which would then become 
> callable without the spinlock held.

That would increase the amount of code, with no gain that I can see.
The list_del would be duplicated, and the loop in winch_cleanup would
have to drop and reacquire the lock around each call to free_winch.

				Jeff
-
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/