![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 13:01 [W:0.218 / U:0.110 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||