Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261775AbTKLFcz (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:32:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261773AbTKLFcy (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:32:54 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:33230 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261771AbTKLFcs (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:32:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:32:32 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" cc: Manfred Spraul , Andrew Morton , , Subject: RE: prepare_wait / finish_wait question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 688 Lines: 19 On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > > What about some safe wake up mechanism like get_task_struct()/__wake_up()/ > put_task_struct()?? A better solution might be to just make the wakeup function take the required runqueue spinlock first, then remove the task from the list, drop the wakeup list spinlock, and _then_ do the actual wakeup. It would require some surgery to the try_to_wake_up() function, though.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/