Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks

Dawson Engler (
Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:05:50 -0800 (PST)

> There are some real ones there. The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and
> semaphores are false positives.
> lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller
> performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements
> between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write().

Ah. I actually knew that. Embarassing. Thanks for pointing it out;
I'll make the change.

BTW, are there known deadlocks (harmless or otherwise)? Debugging
the checker is a bit hard since false negatives are silent...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at