> > active_writer is cleared while holding cpuhp_lock, so this should be safe, > > right? > > You lost me on that one. Don't we get to that piece of code precisely > because we don't hold any of the CPU-hotplug locks? If so, the > writer might well hold all the locks it needs, and might well change > cpu_hotplug.active_writer out from under us. > > What am I missing here? > > Thanx, Paul
I was missing that cpuhp_lock_* are simply lockdep anotations ... it's getting late :) So you're right, we need to verify that we don't get a 0 on the second access. Will send an updated version soon. Thanks! -- 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/
