Re: yield() in i2c non-happy paths hits BUG under -rt patch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/07/2009 12:01 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:

One thing I do not understand: if yield() is a bug to RT kernels, then
we would have to remove them all? But so far, yield() still exists in
the kernel tree, and it serves a purpose. Are you going to ask all
developers to remove all occurrences of yield() in their code? Doesn't
sound terribly realistic.


The flaw in using yield() with RT priorities, is that it doesn't do what you expect.

The scheduler will run, and pick the highest-priority thread, which is the one yield()-ing.

So the risk is, that whatever the yield() intended to do, it won't do, and worse, that you will end up endlessly yielding to yourself, locking the machine.

So the call is for something more explicit of an implementation.

Sven
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux