El Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:53:04PM +0200 Oliver Neukum ha dit:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 19:49 schrieb Matthias Kaehlcke:
> > @@ -1706,7 +1706,7 @@ static int rp_write(struct tty_struct *tty,
> > if (count <= 0 || rocket_paranoia_check(info, "rp_write"))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - down_interruptible(&info->write_sem);
> > + mutex_lock_interruptible(&info->write_mtx);
>
> This is a bug. It is also present in the current code, but nevertheless
> it is a bug. If you use an interruptible lock, you must be ready to deal
> with interrupts, which are ignored by this code.
i fear i don't have the experience/knowledge to fix this bug, thanks
for your remark.
i'm a bit confused now about the interruptible locks, i thought using
them means that the process will be waked up when receiving a
signal. what role are playing interrupts when using interruptible locks?
--
Matthias Kaehlcke
Linux Application Developer
Barcelona
La libertad es como la mañana. Hay quienes esperan dormidos a que
llegue, pero hay quienes desvelan y caminan la noche para alcanzarla
(Subcomandante Marcos)
.''`.
using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' :
`. `'`
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
