From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262578AbVCJMuY (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:50:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262585AbVCJMuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:50:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:6793 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262578AbVCJMuU (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:50:20 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20050310042217.3ba5b9bc.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050310042217.3ba5b9bc.akpm@osdl.org> <4181.1110456111@redhat.com> To: Andrew Morton Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] keys: Discard key spinlock and use RCU for key payload [try #3] X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.50.1 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:50:08 +0000 Message-ID: <5005.1110459008@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > What's with the preempt_enable()/disable() added to __key_link()? It's not > obvious what is being protected from what, and why. Ummm... Yes... They're probably not necessary. A wmb() may be required after the klist->nkeys++ to commit to memory the fact there's now an extra key link available, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. Do you want me to redo the patch? David