On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:28:21AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:24:58AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
...
quoted text
> > Before Calling msg_unlock() they call ipc_rcu_getref() that increments a 
> > refcount in the rcu header for the msg structure. This guarantees that 
> > the the structure won't be freed before they relock it. Once the 
> > structure is relocked by ipc_lock_by_ptr(), they do the symmetric 
> > operation i.e. ipc_rcu_putref().
...
quoted text
> which seems to suggest "out" is an RCU protected pointer, so, I
> thought these refcounts were for something else. But, after looking
> at how it's used it turns out to be ~90% wrong: probably 9 out of 10
> places use refcouning around this, so, these rcu_read_locks() don't
> work here at all. So, probably I miss something again, but IMHO,
> these rcu_read_locks/unlocks could be removed here or in
...
...So I missed it again: after all this RCU protection works before
and after refcounting.

Sorry,
Jarek P.
-
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/