Linux - KernelThis forum is for all discussion relating to the Linux kernel.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I am trying to cut in a function in the mac80211 layer in the 2.6.32 kernel and am stuck I was hoping someone can help.
The issue is that I need to call msleep() or schedule() or down() inside multiple layers of existing spinlock and rcu_lock critical sections, when I attempt this I get the "scheduling while atomic" or "scheduling from idle thread" error.
This is using 2.6.32 non-SMP. I have tried both preempt and not preempt as kernel options.
I have read around that if you are non-SMP the spin locks shouldn't do anything and I found an option to let the RCU's be preemptable.
Is there an obvious way to tackle this problem?
I am trying to cut in this fcn :
void ieee80211_aes_ccm_encrypt(struct crypto_cipher *tfm, u8 *scratch,
u8 *data, size_t data_len,
u8 *cdata, u8 *mic)
with a blocking version, without rewriting the kernel
Any help or 411 on spinlocks,interrupts and rcu_locks in the networking layer will help a ton
archieval thanks for the info,
I am reading up on workqueues and tasklets, I think the workqueue is what I am looking for, (which permits sleeping).
I still cant think of a clever way force a function running in a interrupt context to wait for one in a user context.
You can always split the function up into a top and bottom half, I was just trying to be lazier than that.