[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120307055206.GA8217@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:52:06 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "avagin@...il.com" <avagin@...il.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uevent: send events in correct order according to seqnum
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:14:04AM +0400, avagin@...il.com wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 01:03 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 21:06, Andrew Vagin<avagin@...nvz.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>The queue handling in the udev daemon assumes that the events are
> >>ordered.
> >>
> >>Before this patch uevent_seqnum is incremented under sequence_lock,
> >>than an event is send uner uevent_sock_mutex. I want to say that code
> >>contained a window between incrementing seqnum and sending an event.
> >>
> >>This patch locks uevent_sock_mutex before incrementing uevent_seqnum.
> >
> >I think we can remove the spin_lock(&sequence_lock); entirely now, right?
>
> I thought about that too. sequence_lock is used when CONFIG_NET
> isn't defined. I've looked on this code one more time and we may
> leave only uevent_sock_mutex and use it even when CONFIG_NET isn't
> defined.
> Thanks for the comment.
>
> Greg, do you have other objections about this patch?
Let's see the one based on Kay's comments first please.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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