[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170918085058.GB17203@krava>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:50:58 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: acme@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
lukasz.odzioba@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 05/10] perf tools: lock to protect thread list
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 07:23:18PM -0700, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
SNIP
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread->namespaces_lock);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> -void thread__namespaces_id(const struct thread *thread,
> +void thread__namespaces_id(struct thread *thread,
> u64 *dev, u64 *ino)
> {
> struct namespaces *ns;
>
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&thread->namespaces_lock);
> ns = thread__namespaces(thread);
isn't it just thread__namespaces that needs this lock?
if that's the case we don't need the change for __hists__add_entry
in previous patch
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists