On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:54:49 +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, comments are welcomed.
It looks like you misunderstood why a static lock protects open counts.
This is done so you do not need to worry about in-structure lock which
can be freed together with the structure. Look at this:
> +static int adu_release_internal(struct adu_device *dev)
> +{
> + /* lock this device */
> + down(&dev->sem);
> + /* decrement our usage count for the device */
> + --dev->open_count;
> + if (dev->open_count <= 0) {
> + adu_abort_transfers(dev);
> + dev->open_count = 0;
> + }
> + /* unlock this device */
> + up(&dev->sem);
The dev->sem is entirely unnecessary here. Every time you use
open_count, it's protected by minor_table_mutex. The name is a litte
unfortunate, feel free to rename it.
This is probably a problem in 2.6 as well. I don't know why people keep
writing these things. Someone at Ontrak needs to look into it.
-- Pete
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
