> But report/interrupt/etc are all bitfields :1. Doesn't this mean compiler
> can do anything it wants with the word where these bitfields live? Can't
> it temporary (say) clear ->interrupt while setting ->report ?
I think the story on this is that, yes, technically the C standard doesn't
rule tha
On 08/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I hope I missed something, but I'm _afraid_ we may have problems.
>
> Looks like we can almost never use utrace->xxx:1 fields without ->lock.
> Suppose that, for example, utrace_control(UTRACE_REPORT) does
>
> utrace->report = 1;
>
> But report/interrupt/etc
On 08/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> If ->vfork_stop was set, it was set by us, no need to take utrace->lock
> to check it.
Oh. Yes, but...
I hope I missed something, but I'm _afraid_ we may have problems.
Looks like we can almost never use utrace->xxx:1 fields without ->lock.
Suppose that, for ex
If ->vfork_stop was set, it was set by us, no need to take utrace->lock
to check it.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov
---
kernel/utrace.c |6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- PU/kernel/utrace.c~UTRACE_1_vfork_stop 2009-08-19 14:00:57.0
+0200
+++ PU/kerne
