Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:55:22 +0400 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] signal, procfs: lock_task_sighand() do not need rcu_read_lock() |
| |
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:29:15PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/03, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > > > lock_task_sighand() make sure task->sighand is being protected, > > so we do not need rcu_read_lock(). > > [ exec() will get task->sighand->siglock before change task->sighand! ] > > > > But code using rcu_read_lock() _just_ to protect lock_task_sighand() > > only appear in procfs. (and some code in procfs use lock_task_sighand() > > without such redundant protection.) > > Yes, the patch looks correct.
Yeah, applied to proc.git
| |