From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262588AbVCJNDp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:03:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262585AbVCJNDo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:03:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:26252 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262588AbVCJM57 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:57:59 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <5005.1110459008@redhat.com> References: <5005.1110459008@redhat.com> <20050310042217.3ba5b9bc.akpm@osdl.org> <4181.1110456111@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton , 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 12:57:48 +0000 Message-ID: <5145.1110459468@redhat.com> To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Howells 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. I should perhaps be using smp_wmb() not wmb(). David