On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.
>
This should not matter - SK_CLOSED may be set at any time.
svc_age_temp_sockets only detaches the socket, sets SK_CLOSED and then
enqueues it. If SK_BUSY is set its already enqueued and svc_sock_enqueue
ensures that it is not enqueued twice.
Regards,
--
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
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]