Re: Locking IOCTL
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
By creatiing something called lock_ioctl, I'd say you're locking the code.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Praveen kumar <chatpravi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have a situation where I have to lock the ioctl provided in my driver. I
> have a uni processor (ARM) system.
> I am using Mutex as the lock for my ioctl.
> return 0;
> I just wanted to know am I using the best lock available for the situation
> aor do I have any flaw in my implementation???
> And from LKD I read that "*lock the data not the code*" and which I am
> literally doing so ?? any comments on this ?
Locking the data means that lets suppose you have some data structure
which requires mutual exclusion. Then I'd create a lock associated
with that data structure (and probably the lock would be a member of
the data structure), and anytime I needed to manipulate/access the
data structure (in an atomic manner), I'd acquire the lock.
What are you locking? Does every single ioctl really need to acquire
> I have interrupts in my driver which is nothing to do with the lock.I am
> taking care that where ever I return in my ioctl the lock is released.
the lock? Why?
Shuswap, BC, Canada
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
[Newbies FAQ] [Linux Kernel Development] [IETF Annouce] [Git] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Networking] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ACPI]