Re: deadlock avoidance?

Davide Libenzi (dlibenzi@maticad.it)
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:50:22 +0100

Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:32 AM
Davide Libenzi <dlibenzi@maticad.it> wrote :
> Wouldn't lock->pid need to be atomic?
>
> On x86 this shouldn't be an issue since atomic_read has no magic but on
> other architectures, lock->pid setting and reading may race.
>

All pid and count modify fall inside 1) a nested lock ( ie. the task
already own the lock : ++lock->count )
2) a lock acquired : lock->pid = getpid() and ++lock->count

Cheers,
Davide.

--
"Debian, the Freedom in Freedom."




-
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/