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. --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
