Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:53:30 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]2.6 test1 mm2 user.c race (?) |
| |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> <ffrederick@prov-liege.be> wrote: > > > > + spin_lock(&uidhash_lock); > > uid_hash_insert(&root_user, uidhashentry(0)); > > + spin_unlock(&uidhash_lock); > > This code runs within an initcall, so it is very unlikely that anything > will race with us here. > > But SMP is up, and this code gets dropped out of memory later (the > out-of-line spinlock code doesn't get dropped though). > > So yes, I'd prefer that the locking be there, if only for documentary > purposes. A /* comment */ which explains why the locking was omitted would > also be suitabe.
I like the locking better than the comment, I trust the analysis today, but with SMP and preempt, the lock protects the future (and you may be missing something even today).
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- 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/
| |