On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:46:20AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On further reflection, this probably would be safe after all. Since we
> don't call put_container_group() in attach_task() until after
> synchronize_rcu() completes, that implies that a container_group_get()
> from the RCU section would have already completed. So we should be
> fine.
Right.
Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand
the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words
in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write
just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together
with the use of RCU.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
