Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:33:12 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] TPM: rcu locking |
| |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:45AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:18:17PM -0300, Rajiv Andrade wrote: > > > Paul, > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 11:19 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > But here we are deleting from what appears to be some other list. > > > > And I don't see any insertiong into either list. > > > > > > > > What am I missing here? > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > Sorry, forgot to change list_add() to list_add_rcu() in the code section > > > below: > > > > > > > > + /* Make chip available */ > > > > > + spin_lock(&driver_lock); > > > > > + list_add(&chip->list, &tpm_chip_list); > > > > > + spin_unlock(&driver_lock); > > > > > > I'll resubmit. > > > > Cool! > > > > So tpm_chip_list and the not-obviously-identical list manipulated > > in tpm_remove_hardware() really are the same list? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > Hey Paul, > > curious, why do they not look like the same list?
Because one of them is named &tpm_chip_list, a global variable, and the other seemed to be returned from a function taking a struct device as an argument. This is indeed consistent with an element in this list being hung off of the struct device, so perhaps I was just being insufficiently persistent in tracking things down.
Thanx, Paul
| |