Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> >> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > What happens if ep_modify calls
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> >> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
>> >> > while __pm_
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> >> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
> >> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
> >>
> >> Yes,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
>> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
>>
>> Yes, that looks like a problem. I think ca
On Sun, 2013-03-10 at 01:11 +, Eric Wong wrote:
>
> static void ep_destroy_wakeup_source(struct epitem *epi)
> {
> - wakeup_source_unregister(epi->ws);
> - epi->ws = NULL;
> + struct wakeup_source *ws = epi->ws;
> +
> + rcu_assign_pointer(epi->ws, NULL);
There is no need to
Eric Wong wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
> > > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
> >
> > Yes, that looks like a problem. I think calling
> > ep_destroy_wakeup
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
>
> Yes, that looks like a problem. I think calling
> ep_destroy_wakeup_source with ep->lock held shoul
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> > Eric Wong wrote:
>> >> Hi Arve, looking at commit 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238
>> >> (epoll: Add a flag, EPOLLWAKEUP, to prevent suspend ...)
>> >>
>> >
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Eric Wong wrote:
> >> Hi Arve, looking at commit 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238
> >> (epoll: Add a flag, EPOLLWAKEUP, to prevent suspend ...)
> >>
> >> I think the reason for using ep->ws instead of epi->ws in
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Eric Wong wrote:
>> Hi Arve, looking at commit 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238
>> (epoll: Add a flag, EPOLLWAKEUP, to prevent suspend ...)
>>
>> I think the reason for using ep->ws instead of epi->ws in the unlikely
>> ovflist case appli
Eric Wong wrote:
> Hi Arve, looking at commit 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238
> (epoll: Add a flag, EPOLLWAKEUP, to prevent suspend ...)
>
> I think the reason for using ep->ws instead of epi->ws in the unlikely
> ovflist case applies to the likely rdllist case, too. Since epi->ws is
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
