On Tuesday 30 October 2007 02:56:51 David Ellingsworth wrote: > If that is the case, then a proper fix would be to use two locks to protect > access to the status. One for allowing read access when no one is writing, > and another for allowing exclusive write access. In such a configuration you > could allow multiple readers while having only one writer. The above fix is > not proper since the lock obtained by another section of code could be > released before or during the status check.
We don't care for that case, as the status is rechecked under lock later. This really is not a problem. We only care for the case where status!=INITIALIZED. Because then we mustn't aquire the lock and return silently. And that's what we do. -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
