Regarding wrong usage of spin_lock_bh
shafi.kernel at gmail.com
Sat Sep 14 06:28:19 EDT 2013
probably taking two consecutive spin_lock_bh ?
any thoughts, would be appreciated.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.kernel at gmail.com>wrote:
> I see a warning,
> /qsdk/qca/src/linux/kernel/softirq.c:159 local_bh_enable_ip+0x5c/0xe0()
> spin_lock_bh. While dev_ioctl is called from user context, not sure
> why we have the warning because of the following reasons in softirq.c :
> 1. in_irqs - interrupt handler context (So we need to use
> spin_lock_irq_save )
> 2. disabled_irqs - interrupts are disabled (spin_lock should be good
> enough ).
> Can some one give me more thoughts, I can see that its not necessary to
> call spin_lock_bh
> from softirq context, what are the other scenarios where this might be a
> problem or not
> necessary ? The above warning comes from dev_ioctl (user context), when
> a new
> network interface is added.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Kernelnewbies