On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote: > On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > 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. > > > > This should not matter - SK_CLOSED may be set at any time. > > svc_age_temp_sockets only detaches the socket, sets SK_CLOSED and then > enqueues it. If SK_BUSY is set its already enqueued and svc_sock_enqueue > ensures that it is not enqueued twice.
Oh, got it. And the list manipulation is safe thanks to sv_lock. Neat, thanks. Can you verify that this solves your problem? --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
