lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 1 Sep 2007 08:50:20 +0400
FromCyrill Gorcunov <>
Subjectsocket locking obscure code
Hi LKML,

looking thru lock_sock_nested (while trying to catch
BUG in CIFS as reported on bugzilla #8377) I found
that lock_sock_nested consist of:

void fastcall lock_sock_nested(struct sock *sk, int subclass)
{
	might_sleep();
--->	spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
	if (sk->sk_lock.owner)
		__lock_sock(sk);
	sk->sk_lock.owner = (void *)1;
--->	spin_unlock(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
	/*
	 * The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
	 */
	mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
	local_bh_enable();
}
so why spin_unlock are there instead of spin_unlock_bh?
To recope with __lock_sock? Am I right?

 		Cyrill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-01 06:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2008