lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:33:31 +0100 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote: > + /* if there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up. > + * > + * or if we're called from a failed down_write(), and there were > + * already threads queued before us, and there are no active writers, > + * the lock must be read owned; try to wake any read locks that were > + * queued ahead of us. */ That looks weird. Can I suggest rewriting it thus: /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up. * * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there * were already threads queued before us and there are no active * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read * locks that were queued ahead of us. */ David -- 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