Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Alan Cox wrote: > > > Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed > > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the > > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the > > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don'

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread Alan Cox
> Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this. The BKL i

Re: lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency Don't do this!

2000-12-15 Thread george anzinger
Jason Wohlgemuth wrote: > > In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code > to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by > the kernel_thread() call. > > However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c , > drivers/md/md.c

lock_kernel() / unlock_kernel inconsistency

2000-12-14 Thread Jason Wohlgemuth
In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by the kernel_thread() call. However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c , drivers/md/md.c, drivers/media/video/msp3400.c), I