[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243617988.14679.69.camel@nimitz>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:26:27 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
xemul@...allels.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/38] C/R: core stuff
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:01 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> if (ctx->dump_live)
> down_read(&uts_sem);
> strncpy(i->sysname, (const char *)uts_ns->name.sysname, 64);
> strncpy(i->nodename, (const char *)uts_ns->name.nodename, 64);
> strncpy(i->release, (const char *)uts_ns->name.release, 64);
> strncpy(i->version, (const char *)uts_ns->name.version, 64);
> strncpy(i->machine, (const char *)uts_ns->name.machine, 64);
> strncpy(i->domainname, (const char *)uts_ns->name.domainname, 64);
> if (ctx->dump_live)
> up_read(&uts_sem);
Doesn't this turn a minor bug (like a task getting accidentally
unfrozen) into a oopsable bug?
I mean, doing this without a lock is nice and all, but it adds code to
make it selectable. What's the purpose of avoiding the semaphore
anyway? Performance?
-- Dave
--
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