On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 11:16 +0530, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
> 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
Yes, I think that's redundant as well. We're not altering the module
list itself, so either of the two locks is sufficient, and we have the
semaphore.
Patch welcome!
Rusty.
--
ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol
-
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]
