On 12/14/05, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > We already do this to resolve (more) symbols, so I don't see it as a > problem. However, I believe that lock is redundant here: we need both > locks to write the list, but either is sufficient for reading, and we > already hold the sem. Was just wondering, in that case, if we really need the spinlock in resolve_symbol() function, where there exists a spinlock around the __find_symbol() function Cheers Ashutosh - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- From: Ashutosh Naik <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- From: Ashutosh Naik <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH] Sonypi: convert to the new platform device interface
- Next by Date: Re: "block" symlink in sysfs for a multifunction device
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
- Index(es):
 |