On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 13:22 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > >
> > > list_del_init(&pi_state->owner->pi_state_list);
> > > list_add(&pi_state->list, &new_owner->pi_state_list);
> > > pi_state->owner = new_owner;
> > > + atomic_inc(&pi_state->refcount);
> >
> > There really needs to be a get_pi_state() or some variant. Having to do
> > a manual atomic_inc is very dangerous.
>
> I understand the need to grab the wait_lock in order to serialize
> rt_mutex_next_owner(), but why the addition of of the atomic_inc() and the
> free_pi_state() ? And if we do need them, shouldn't we place them around the
> use of the pi_state, rather than just before the unlock calls?
Hmm, is the inc really needed? The hb->lock is held through this and
the pi_state can't go away while that lock is held.
-- Steve
-
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]
