[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070503170447.8520da9c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:04:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] revoke: change revoke_table to fileset and
revoke_details
On Thu, 3 May 2007 23:32:28 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * fileset - an array of file pointers.
> > > + * @files: the array of file pointers
> > > + * @nr: number of elements in the array
> > > + * @end: index to next unused file pointer
> > > + */
> > > +struct fileset {
> > > + struct file **files;
> > > + unsigned long nr;
> > > + unsigned long end;
> > > +};
> >
> > What's the locking protocol for all this?
>
> What do you mean? There is no concurrent access going on here.
Well that's the "locking" protocol then: each instance of this structure is
only ever touched by a single thread, yes?
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > +static void free_fset(struct fileset *fset)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = fset->end; i < fset->nr; i++)
> > > + fput(fset->files[i]);
> > > +
> > > + kfree(fset->files);
> > > + kfree(fset);
> > > +}
> >
> > Confused. Shouldn't it be
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < fset->end; i++)
>
> No. The fset->end is an index to the first _unused_ file pointer. All
> entries before that are in use by revoked file descriptors so we don't
> want to fput() them.
>
OK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists