On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:39:18AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Looks like a good catch. I assume you found this through inspection and > not hitting it practice? Correct, I caught this from inspecting the code.
> Also it seems user_mad.c would need the same fix. Yes, I missed that. > > Although looking at this I wonder if we do need that lock... we don't > seem to do any locking when we do the clear_bit in the dev_map, and all > of this is done through the device add/remove callback, which seems to > be serialized by the device_mutex in device.c. But we probably don't > want to make that a requirement in case we parallelize in the future. > I missed the fact the clear_bit is not atomic. So to make this complete I will send a new patch with protection on the clear bit. Would you like me to send a patch for user_mad too or would you push that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
