On Sat, 12 May 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> without task_lock() we can see "p->mm != NULL" but not PF_BORROWED_MM.
Let me explain it one more time:
- shouldn't the *caller* protect this?
Afaik, there's two situations:
- either things don't change (in which case you don't need locking at
all, since things are statically one way or the other)
- or things change (in which case the caller can't rely on the return
value anyway, since they might change *after* you release the lock)
ie what's up? Is there a third case?
Linus
-
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]
