Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:38:00 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eventfd signal race in aio_complete() |
| |
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:29:20 -0800 (PST) > Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote: > > > The second solution/patch simply moves the eventfd_signal() call before > > the __aio_put_req() call, but after the event has beed "ringed". > > We should be clear to go with the shorter/nicer second solution. Those > > patches builds, but I'm not even signing them off till I tested them. > > If there are no spinlock ordering issues between &ctx->ctx_lock > and &ctx->wqh.lock (taken inside eventfd_signal), then the second > patch is indeed preferable. > > Jeff and I did look at that briefly last night, but were not > familiar enough with the code to decide whether or not that was > safe.
There's no interlocking between the two, so let's go with #2. Jeff, would you mind giving patch #2 a spin in your test suite?
- Davide
| |