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, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

>
> > Do you want to know why last night I added a spinlock around mmget/mmput
> > without thinking twice? Simply because mm->count was an atomic_t while it
> > doesn't need to be an atomic_t in first place.
>
> Agreed.

Incorrect, see my previous email. It may not be strictly necessary right
now due to us probably holding the kernel lock everywhere, but it is
conceptually necessary, and it is _not_ an argument for a spinlock.

The /proc code has to be fixed, but the easy fix is to just revert to the
old one as far as I can see. I shouldn't have accepted the /proc patches
in the first place, and I'm sorry I did.

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    [W:0.098 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site