[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703113027.GC4847@ff.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:30:27 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:18:48PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index b7e5db8..4e77853 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
...
> @@ -1271,6 +1271,9 @@ static inline int sk_has_allocations(const struct sock *sk)
> * in its cache, and so does the tp->rcv_nxt update on CPU2 side. The CPU1
> * could then endup calling schedule and sleep forever if there are no more
> * data on the socket.
> + *
> + * The sk_has_helper is always called right after a call to read_lock, so we
Btw.:
- * The sk_has_helper is always called right after a call to read_lock, so we
+ * The sk_has_sleeper is always called right after a call to read_lock, so we
Jarek P.
--
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