From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268263AbUHXUTV (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:19:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268266AbUHXUTU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:19:20 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:11227 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268263AbUHXUTT (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:19:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:20:42 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ryan Cumming Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] ioport-cache-2.6.8.1.patch Message-ID: <20040824202042.GA4712@elte.hu> References: <20040824071928.GA7697@elte.hu> <200408241238.29702.ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200408241238.29702.ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ryan Cumming wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2004 00:19, you wrote: > > +       if (likely(next == tss->io_bitmap_owner)) { > > Probably a stupid question, but what's stopping the tss->io_bitmap_owner from being killed, and then a new > thread_struct being kmalloc()'ed in the exact same place as the old one? I realize it's highly unlikely, I'm just > wondering if it's possible at all. > > I guess clearing tss->io_bitmap_owner whenever we kfree() the bitmap owner's thread_struct would plug that up. the patch flushes the ->io_bitmap_owner info on thread exit. Ingo