lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that was oopsing Linux-2.2.0]


On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> If you remove the kernel lock around do_exit() you _need_ my mm_lock
> spinlock. You need it to make atomic the decreasing of mm->count and
> current->mm = &init_mm. If the two instructions are not atomic you have
> _no_ way to know if you can mmget() at any time the mm of a process.

Andrea, just go away.

The two do not _have_ to be atomic, they never had to, and they never
_will_ have to be atomic. You obviously haven't read all my email
explaining why they don't have to be atomic.

> I repeat in another way (just trying to avoid English mistakes):
> decreasing mm->count has to go in sync with updating current->mm,

No it has not.

Linus


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans