On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote:
> So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21
> and .22.
>
> Bruce: for you :-)
OK, thanks! But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused:
> if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, &svsk->sk_flags))
> continue;
> - if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> + if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) > 1
> + || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> continue;
> atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse);
> list_move(le, &to_be_aged);
What is it that ensures svsk->sk_inuse isn't incremented or SK_BUSY set
after that test? Not all the code that does either of those is under
the same serv->sv_lock lock that this code is.
--b.
-
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]
