basically it's just that pre-emtion just muddies the waters more..
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Anjali Kulkarni wrote: > Right, that was my question too, doesent seem connected with pre-emptive > kernels... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Julian Elischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Peter Pentchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gersh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bernd > Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Anjali Kulkarni" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:14 AM > Subject: Re: setjmp/longjmp > > > > On Tuesday, 2 October 2001 at 12:43:54 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:56:24AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > > >>> [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > >>> > > >>> On Friday, 28 September 2001 at 10:12:14 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Gersh wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Bernd Walter wrote: > > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:03:51PM +0530, Anjali Kulkarni wrote: > > >>>>>>> Does anyone know whether it is advisable or not to use > > >>>>>>> setjmp/longjmp within kernel code? I could not see any > > >>>>>>> setjmp/longjmp in kernel source code. Is there a good reason for > > >>>>>>> this or can it be used? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You need to look again, it's used in several places in the kernel. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Look at sys/i386/i386/db_interface.c > > >>>> > > >>>> Yeah but it would probably be a pretty bad idea to use it without > > >>>> very careful thought. Especialy with the kernel becoming > > >>>> pre-emptable in the future.. > > >>> > > >>> Can you think of a scenario where it wouldn't work? Preemption > > >>> doesn't tear stacks apart, right? > > >> > > >> How about a case of a longjmp() back from under an acquired lock/mutex? > > >> Like function A sets up a jump buffer, calls function B, B acquires > > >> a lock, B calls C, C longjmp()'s back to A; what happens to the lock? > > >> > > >> It would work if A were aware of B's lock and the possibility of a code > > >> path that would end up with it still being held; I presume that this is > > >> what Julian meant by 'very careful thought'. > > > > > > pretty much... > > > > That's wrong, of course, but I don't see what this has to do with > > preemptive kernels. This is the same incorrect usages as performing > > malloc() and then longjmp()ing over the free(). > > > > Greg > > -- > > See complete headers for address and phone numbers > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
