On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:59:05PM +0200, Paolo Giarrusso wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I trust that thanks to deep and good work by
> who designed locking in the network layer, this patch is correct. And
> indeed I addressed your issues below.
OK, but there will need to be comments explaining why it is OK that
this data only looks half-locked.
The locking, as it stands, looks consistent and conservative.
However, there are some places where critical sections are too big and
the locking should be narrowed.
> This is also true of char/block devices (you don't need to lock
> against write/read in open/close; UBD doesn't know that but I have
> unfinished patches for it), but there it's simpler: if userspace you
> call close while a read is executing, thanks to refcounting (sys_read
> does fget) the ->close (or ->release) is only called after the end of
> ->read.
In my current patchset, there is a per-queue lock which is mostly
managed by the block layer.
Jeff
-
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]
