[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E78A4AF.1020303@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:35:27 +0400
From: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
CC: "Schumaker, Bryan" <Bryan.Schumaker@...app.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"neilb@...e.de" <neilb@...e.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] SUNRPC: introduce helpers for reference counted
rpcbind clients
20.09.2011 18:14, Myklebust, Trond пишет:
>>>
>>> Doesn't it need to be protected by rpcb_clnt_lock too?
>>>
>>
>> Nope from my pow. It's protected by rpcb_create_local_mutex. I.e. no one
>> will change rpcb_users since it's zero. If it's non zero - we willn't get to
>> rpcb_set_local().
>
> OK, so you are saying that the rpcb_users++ below could be replaced by rpcb_users=1?
>
Yes, you right.
> In that case, don't you need a smp_wmb() between the setting of rpcb_local_clnt/4 and the setting of rpcb_users? Otherwise, how do you guarantee that rpcb_users != 0 implies rpbc_local_clnt/4 != NULL?
>
We check rpcb_users under spinlock. Gain spinlock forces memory barrier, doesn't it?
--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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