[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703114310.GA4534@jolsa.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:43:10 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.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 11:30:27AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 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.
oops, thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists