Jeff Dike <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> 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.
Guess I'll put it in Documentation and reference it.
> The locking, as it stands, looks consistent and conservative.
Yes, it is.
> However, there are some places where critical sections are too big
> and
> the locking should be narrowed.
Yes, in particular we cannot hold a spinlock for the whole _open
since it must call sleeping functions.
> > 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.
I'll try then to finish the patches soon and merge them; the main
problem is splitting (including the use of different locks) normal
locking from our peculiar locking of _open/_close against mconsole
changes.
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
