lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromPaul Wagland <>
SubjectRe: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ?
DateWed, 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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01    [W:0.218 / U:0.110 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans