lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[2.4.13] [devfs 0.119 (20011009)] base.c: devfsd_ioctl
Date

Can you say where I have wrong?

Code on devfsd_ioctl() [base.c]:

if (fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL)
{
if ( !spin_trylock (&lock) ) return -EBUSY;
fs_info->devfsd_task = current;
spin_unlock (&lock);

To me that spinlock looks like it is useless.
Either

1) If it is mean that lock protects two CPUs settting
fs_info->devfsd_task when another is set it,
then test about fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL
should be inside of locked code
or 2) this is protected with some other lock as comment
perhaps indicates:

/* Ensure only one reader has access to the queue. This scheme will
work even if the global kernel lock were to be removed, because it
doesn't matter who gets in first, as long as only one gets it
*/
if (fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL)
{
if ( !spin_trylock (&lock) ) return -EBUSY;

Should this be:

--- fs/devfs/base.c.old Thu Oct 11 09:23:24 2001
+++ fs/devfs/base.c Sun Oct 28 14:59:03 2001
@@ -3227,6 +3227,11 @@
if (fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL)
{
if ( !spin_trylock (&lock) ) return -EBUSY;
+ if (fs_info->devfsd_task != NULL) {
+ /* We lost race ... */
+ spin_unlock (&lock);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
fs_info->devfsd_task = current;
spin_unlock (&lock);
fs_info->devfsd_file = file;

--
/"\ | Kari
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Hurtta
X Against HTML Mail |
/ \ |
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:11    [W:0.038 / U:2.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site