On 12/15/05, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 11:16 +0530, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
> > On 12/14/05, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
Changelog -
This patch gets rid of the redundant spinlock in the function
resolve_symbol() as we are not altering the module list, and we
already hold the semaphore.
Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Naik <[email protected]>
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.15-rc5-vanilla/kernel/module.c linux-2.6.15-rc5/kernel/module.c
--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-vanilla/kernel/module.c 2005-12-14 10:14:08.000000000 +0530
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5/kernel/module.c 2005-12-15 09:41:59.000000000 +0530
@@ -958,7 +958,6 @@ static unsigned long resolve_symbol(Elf_
unsigned long ret;
const unsigned long *crc;
- spin_lock_irq(&modlist_lock);
ret = __find_symbol(name, &owner, &crc, mod->license_gplok);
if (ret) {
/* use_module can fail due to OOM, or module unloading */
@@ -966,7 +965,6 @@ static unsigned long resolve_symbol(Elf_
!use_module(mod, owner))
ret = 0;
}
- spin_unlock_irq(&modlist_lock);
return ret;
}
[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]
