[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BUG in shared_policy_replace() ?
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> Why free the shared policy created to split up an old
> policy that spans the whole new range? Ie, see patch.

I think you're misreading it. That code comes from when I changed it
over from sp->sem to sp->lock. If it finds that it needs to split an
existing range, so needs to allocate a new2, then it has to drop and
reacquire the spinlock around that. It's conceivable that a racing
task could change the tree while the spinlock is dropped, in such a
way that this split is no longer necessary once we reacquire the
spinlock. The code you're looking at frees up new2 in that case;
whereas in the normal case, where it is still needed, there's a
new2 = NULL after inserting it, so that it won't be freed below.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans