Re: [CHECKER] blocking w/ spinlock or interrupt's disabled

george anzinger (george@mvista.com)
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:11:34 -0800


Dawson Engler wrote:
>
> > Is it difficult to split it into "interrupts disabled" and "spin lock
> > held"?
>
Is it difficult to test for matching spinlock pairs such as
spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq. Sometimes a spin_lock_irq is followed by
a spin_unlock and a separate interrupt re-enable. This sort of usage,
while not strictly wrong, does make it hard to use the spin_lock/unlock
macros to do preemption. This said, pairing information would be very
helpful. Note, there are several flavors here, not just the one I
cited.

George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/