Hi! I have came upon an interesting situation where I am not sure about mutex semantics. What I want to do is something like this: mutex_lock(&global_lock); mutex_lock(small_lock); do_something_small_which_requires_both_locks(); do_something_big_which_requires_only_small_lock(); mutex_unlock(small_lock); mutex_unlock(&global_lock); I want to avoid holding the global lock while doing something_big. Can I do something like this: mutex_lock(&global_lock); mutex_lock(small_lock); do_something_small_which_requires_both_locks(); mutex_unlock(&global_lock); do_something_big_which_requires_only_small_lock(); mutex_unlock(small_lock); The mutex_lock order cannot be changed due to deadlocks. Releasing small_lock and then reaquiring might be possible, but looks pretty fragile. -Michi -- programing a layer 3+4 network protocol for mesh networks see http://michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
