lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduling in interrupt BUG. [Patch]
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0400, Michal Ostrowski wrote:
> Having looked at the code for locking sockets I am concerned that the
> locking procedures for tcp may be wrong. __release_sock releases the
> socket spinlock before calling sk->backlog_rcv() (== tcp_v4_do_rcv),
> however the comments at the top of tcp_v4_do_rcv() assert that the
> socket's spinlock is held (which is definitely not the case).
>
> Anybody care to comment on this?

Looks ok for me.

The user socket lock (lock.users>0) is held while __release_sock runs,
which is also sufficient to protect it as all new packets will go into backlog.
The spinlock comment only applies to bottom halves.

-Andi

-
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 12:53    [W:0.054 / U:38.640 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site