On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:50:55AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > I'm very sorry about the locking, but the thing grew up in times of > > kernel 2.0, which didn't require any locking. There are a few possible > > Incorrect. You have blocking allocations in critical areas and they > required locking all way back.
Ok. I see a problem where input_register_device() calls input handler connect methods, which do kmalloc(). This would be bad even on 2.0. Anything else? I believe the ->open()/->release() methods are still protected. > > races with device registration/unregistration, and it's on my list to > > fix that, however under normal operation there shouldn't be any need for > > locks, as there are no complex structures built that'd become > > inconsistent. > > Um-hm... Vojtech, meet USB mouse; USB mouse, meet Vojtech. Now watch > a disconnect and reconnect happening when luser suddenly gets overexcited > and jerks the wrong hand a bit too hard while browsing the most profitable > sort of website... I know. As I said, this is a problem I know about, and will be fixed. I was mainly interested whether anyone sees further problems in scenarios which don't include device addition/removal. We already fixed this in serio, and input and gameport are next in the list. > > If you find scenarios which will lead to trouble in the event delivery > > system, please tell me, and I'll try to fix that as soon as possible. > > See above. Devices appearing and disappearing *are* normal. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR - 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/
