[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200717.123027.1640292958732505858.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: kgraul@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, raspl@...ux.ibm.com,
ubraun@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 04/10] net/smc: protect smc ib device initialization
From: Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:37:40 +0200
> Fix that by protecting the critical code using a mutex.
...
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ struct smc_ib_device { /* ib-device infos for smc */
> DECLARE_BITMAP(ports_going_away, SMC_MAX_PORTS);
> atomic_t lnk_cnt; /* number of links on ibdev */
> wait_queue_head_t lnks_deleted; /* wait 4 removal of all links*/
> + struct mutex mutex; /* protects smc ib device */
> };
So which is it? Does the mutex protect the entire contents of the
smc ib device struct, as stated in the comment? Or does it only
synchronize object creation?
One of them is obviously wrong, so please correct that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists