Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Wagland <> | Subject | Re: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ? | Date | Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:04:41 +0100 |
| |
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]
| |