Hello Michael!
Then I tried:
...
spin_lock(&tx_d->lock);
sock_sendmsg(...);
spin_unlock(&tx_d->lock);
...
and I get no error messages anymore but now a nice person asked me if
that's safe and I think it isn't because interrupts are on in work handlers
or not?
It probably works as long as there is no code which locks this spinlock with
interrupts disabled. But I recommend using a mutex instead, as it can sleeps.
The spinlock does busy waiting...
-Michi
O.K. I think:
The spin_locks were only used in the work handler and in no interrupt
handler. So without disabling interrupts (to avoid the BUG message) it
has been safe - good.
I don't know mutex_lock and I'm using semaphores. I hope that's also OK.
Many Thanks and best regards,
Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
