Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:11:04 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix theoretical ccids_{read,write}_lock() race |
| |
On 07/21, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:02:06 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote: > > > Make sure that spin_unlock_wait() is properly ordered wrt atomic_inc(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> > > > > --- t/net/dccp/ccid.c~ccid 2006-12-18 18:17:31.000000000 +0300 > > +++ t/net/dccp/ccid.c 2007-07-21 18:29:21.000000000 +0400 > > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ static inline void ccids_write_unlock(vo > > static inline void ccids_read_lock(void) > > { > > atomic_inc(&ccids_lockct); > > + smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); > > spin_unlock_wait(&ccids_lock); > > } > > > > Why not just use standard rwlocks in there? > > (This is probably an FAQ, but it should be).
Perhaps because read_lock() doesn't allow to sleep?
Oleg.
- 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/
| |