On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote:
quoted text
> So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21
> and .22.
> 
> Bruce:  for you :-)

OK, thanks!  But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused:

quoted text
>  		if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, &svsk->sk_flags))
>  			continue;
> -		if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> +		if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) > 1
> +		    || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
>  			continue;
>  		atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse);
>  		list_move(le, &to_be_aged);

What is it that ensures svsk->sk_inuse isn't incremented or SK_BUSY set
after that test?  Not all the code that does either of those is under
the same serv->sv_lock lock that this code is.

--b.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/