* socket locking obscure code
@ 2007-09-01 4:50 Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2007-09-01 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML
Hi LKML,
looking thru lock_sock_nested (while trying to catch
BUG in CIFS as reported on bugzilla #8377) I found
that lock_sock_nested consist of:
void fastcall lock_sock_nested(struct sock *sk, int subclass)
{
might_sleep();
---> spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
if (sk->sk_lock.owner)
__lock_sock(sk);
sk->sk_lock.owner = (void *)1;
---> spin_unlock(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
/*
* The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
*/
mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
local_bh_enable();
}
so why spin_unlock are there instead of spin_unlock_bh?
To recope with __lock_sock? Am I right?
Cyrill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2007-09-01 4:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-09-01 4:50 socket locking obscure code Cyrill Gorcunov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox