Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:53:42 -0500 | From | Johannes Erdfelt <> | Subject | Re: deadlock avoidance? |
| |
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999, Davide Libenzi <dlibenzi@maticad.it> wrote: > Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:32 AM > Davide Libenzi <dlibenzi@maticad.it> wrote : > > Wouldn't lock->pid need to be atomic? > > > > On x86 this shouldn't be an issue since atomic_read has no magic but on > > other architectures, lock->pid setting and reading may race. > > All pid and count modify fall inside 1) a nested lock ( ie. the task > already own the lock : ++lock->count ) > 2) a lock acquired : lock->pid = getpid() and ++lock->count
The setting is, but not all of the reading.
JE
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |