Paul (??) Menage wrote: > On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > mutex_lock(&container_mutex); >> > > set_bit(CONT_RELEASABLE, &cont->flags); >> > >- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&css->refcnt)) { >> > >- check_for_release(cont); >> > >- } >> > >+ check_for_release(cont); >> > > mutex_unlock(&container_mutex); >> > > > > I think that this isn't safe as it stands, without a synchronize_rcu() > in container_diput() prior to the kfree(). Also, it will break if > anyone tries to use a release agent on a hierarchy that has your > memory controller bound to it. >
Isn't the code functionally the same as before? We still do atomic_test_and_dec() as before. We still set_bit() CONT_RELEASABLE, we take the container_mutex and check_for_release(). I am not sure I understand what changed? Could you please elaborate as to why using a release agent is broken when the memory controller is attached to it? I am not quite sure why we need the synchronize_rcu() either in container_diput(). > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/