On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 06:15:31PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 07:51 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > + spin_lock(&q->lock); > > > + list_replace_init(&q->list, &list); > > > + spin_unlock(&q->lock); > > > > OK, I'll bite... > > > > How do we avoid deadlock in the case where a pair of CPUs send to each > > other concurrently? > > Sender takes the lock with interrupts-disabled. That should prevent any > deadlock, right? You are of course correct! Apologies for my confusion!!! Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
