lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] atomic: Only take lock when the counter drops to zero on UP as well
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:13:57PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> I think it is wrong to unconditionally take the lock before calling
> atomic_dec_and_test() in _atomic_dec_and_lock(). This will deadlock in
> situation where it is known that the counter will not reach zero (e.g. holding
> another reference to the same object) but the lock is already taken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>

Paul's worry about callers aside, I think it is probably a good idea
to reduce ifdefs and share more code.

So for this patch,

Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>

> ---
> lib/dec_and_lock.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/dec_and_lock.c b/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> index a65c314..e73822a 100644
> --- a/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> +++ b/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> @@ -19,11 +19,10 @@
> */
> int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that drops it to 0 (ie. it was 1) */
> if (atomic_add_unless(atomic, -1, 1))
> return 0;
> -#endif
> +
> /* Otherwise do it the slow way */
> spin_lock(lock);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(atomic))
> --
> 1.6.0.2


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 08:57    [W:0.203 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site