On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:12:30AM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. September 2007 21:55 schrieb J. Bruce Fields:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Oh, got it. And the list manipulation is safe thanks to sv_lock. Neat,
> > thanks. Can you verify that this solves your problem?
>
> Patch works fine here.
Great, thanks again!
--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]