On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote: > > So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21 > > and .22. > > > > Bruce: for you :-) > > OK, thanks! But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused: > > > if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, &svsk->sk_flags)) > > continue; > > - if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, > > &svsk->sk_flags)) > > + if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) > 1 > > + || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags)) > > continue; > > atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse); > > list_move(le, &to_be_aged); > > What is it that ensures svsk->sk_inuse isn't incremented or SK_BUSY set > after that test? Not all the code that does either of those is under > the same serv->sv_lock lock that this code is. >
This should not matter - SK_CLOSED may be set at any time. svc_age_temp_sockets only detaches the socket, sets SK_CLOSED and then enqueues it. If SK_BUSY is set its already enqueued and svc_sock_enqueue ensures that it is not enqueued twice. Regards, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts - 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/
