* Re: On "Unreliable Locking Guide" bug ?
[not found] <3A89CAA7.5090400@oz.agile.tv>
@ 2001-02-14 4:35 ` Rusty Russell
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Rusty Russell @ 2001-02-14 4:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: court; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel
In message <3A89CAA7.5090400@oz.agile.tv> you write:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am reviewing your "Unreliable Locking Guide" from linux 2.4 and just
> wonder about the
> section on "Avoiding Locks: Read and Write". The two lines of code
>
> new->next = i-> next;
> i->next = new;
Hi John,
Yes, there is of course a lock against other list
manipulations. I've attached a patch to make this clear..
Thanks!
Rusty.
--- linux-2.4.0-official/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl.~1~ Sat Dec 30 09:07:19 2000
+++ linux-2.4.0-official/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl Wed Feb 14 15:33:36 2001
@@ -720,7 +720,8 @@
halves without a lock. Depending on their exact timing, they
would either see the new element in the list with a valid
<structfield>next</structfield> pointer, or it would not be in the
- list yet.
+ list yet. A lock is still required against other CPUs inserting
+ or deleting from the list, of course.
</para>
<para>
--
Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread