From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from castle.nmd.msu.ru (castle.nmd.msu.ru [193.232.112.53]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA19088 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 06:56:34 -0500 Message-ID: <19990110145618.A32291@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:56:18 +0300 From: Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich Subject: Re: MM deadlock [was: Re: arca-vm-8...] References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from "Linus Torvalds" on Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:50:14PM Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , steve@netplus.net, "Eric W. Biederman" , brent verner , "Garst R. Reese" , Kalle Andersson , Zlatko Calusic , Ben McCann , Alan Cox , bredelin@ucsd.edu, "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:50:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > The cleanest solution I can think of is actually to allow semaphores to be > > recursive. I can do that with minimal overhead (just one extra instruction > > in the non-contention case), so it's not too bad, and I've wanted to do it > > for certain other things, but it's still a nasty piece of code to mess > > around with. > > > > Oh, well. I don't think I have much choice. Well, doesn't semaphore recursion mean that the write atomicity is no more guaranteed by inode's i_sem semaphore? Best wishes Andrey V. Savochkin -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org