lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ?
    Date

    On Mar 9, 2004, at 20:30, David S. Miller wrote:

    > On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:27:41 +0200
    > "Viorel Canja, Softwin" <vcanja@bitdefender.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Shouldn't "write_lock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);" be moved before
    >> "req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[h];" to avoid a race condition ?
    >
    > Nope, the listening socket's socket lock is held, and all things that
    > add members to these hash chains hold that lock.

    Is that the same as saying that the write_lock() is not needed at all?
    Since it is already guaranteed to be protected with a different lock?

    Cheers,
    Paul
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:5.956 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site