[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxHg9aCBydM=QGygmuVHnHDZXov=Z2PKOpO3c9XJTTRdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:14:56 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, aquini@...hat.com,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ipc: introduce obtaining a lockless ipc object
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
>
> +struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_obtain_object(struct ipc_ids *ids, int id)
This looks good..
> +struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_obtain_object_check(struct ipc_ids *ids, int id)
The comment on ipc_checkid() says that it should only be called with
the lock held.
Which seems entirely bogus, and I think it's just stale. It's just
checking the same ipc->seq that is only set at allocation, so it won't
change, afaik.
So I *think* the above is ok, but I'd want people to look at that
comment and remove it if it is stale. And if it's not stale, think
about this.
Linus
--
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