[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070912184222.GG4274@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:42:22 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...dentenwerk.mhn.de>,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work
(was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
-
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