Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...>
Cc: <paulmck@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 3:41 pm

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:49:56 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov"
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:



As is, these sites are a bug in -rt and we'll need to fix them anyway.

As for the code you pointed me to, the i8042 driver, it seems to play
way to funny tricks for a simple 'slow' driver.

If you replace the spin_lock() + sync_sched(), with rcu_read_lock() +
rcu_call() it should work again without adding an extra lock.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Sep 19, 11:37 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs ..., Peter Zijlstra, (Wed Sep 19, 3:41 pm)