Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up()

From	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up()
Date	2016-02-18 09:20 +0100
Message-ID	<r3rYC-2K0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<r36r7-4hD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r37Qf-59r-59@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:40:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Mucking with the semaphore implementation just because printk() is
> terminally broken shite really doesn't fly.

Jan is currently working on the terminally broken shite, and I expect it
makes printk() robuster. I just tried this patch because I though the
semaphore also need to be fixed and furthermore it can fix a deadlock by
removing the waiting within trylock. I think it's reasonable. Wrong?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up() Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-02-17 10:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within  up() Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 10:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within  up() Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-02-18 09:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within  up() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-17 11:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within  up() Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-02-18 09:20 +0100

csiph-web