lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: missing locking in sched_domains code
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:49:04 +0200 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > /* doms_cur_mutex serializes access to doms_cur[] array */
> > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(doms_cur_mutex);
> > >
> > > +static inline void lock_doms_cur(void)
> > > +{
> > > + mutex_lock(&doms_cur_mutex);
> > > +}
> >
> > > @@ -7813,8 +7811,10 @@ int arch_reinit_sched_domains(void)
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > get_online_cpus();
> > > + lock_doms_cur();
> >
> > thanks, that looks a lot more clean already. May i ask for another
> > thing, if you are hacking on this anyway? Please get rid of the
> > lock_doms_cur() complication now that it's not conditional - an open
> > coded mutex_lock(&sched_doms_mutex) looks more readable - it gives a
> > clear idea about what's happening. Also, please rename sched_doms_mutex
> > to something less tongue-twisting - such as sched_domains_mutex. Hm?
>
> Your wish is my order:

heh, let's all boss Heiko around.

> /* doms_cur_mutex serializes access to doms_cur[] array */
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(doms_cur_mutex);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);

The comment refers to a no-longer-existing lock, and no longer correctly
describes the lock's usage.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-28 11:01    [W:0.055 / U:1.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site