Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964906AbVJZUkG (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:40:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964908AbVJZUkG (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:40:06 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:41109 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964906AbVJZUkF (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:40:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Andreas Kleen cc: Chandra Seetharaman , Keith Owens , , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Notifier chains are unsafe In-Reply-To: <3941240.1130353524290.SLOX.WebMail.wwwrun@imap-dhs.suse.de> 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: 710 Lines: 23 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Andreas Kleen wrote: > > Note that the RCU documentation says RCU critical sections are not > > allowed > > to sleep. > > In this case it would be ok. I don't understand. If it's okay for an RCU critical section to sleep in this case, why wouldn't it be okay always? What's special here? Aren't there requirements about critical sections finishing on the same CPU as they started on? Can you please explain in more detail? Alan Stern - 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/