From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:15:33 +0100
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:54:23PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> + * The race for tcp fires when the __add_wait_queue changes done by CPU1
>> stay
>> + * in its cache, and so does the tp->rcv_nxt update on CPU2 side. The CPU1
>> + * could then endup calling schedule and sleep forever if there are no more
>> + * data on the socket.
>> + *
>
> Would be easier to refer to the comment that now adorns
> waitqueue_active().
Yeah, that might be a good idea. Herbert can you adjust this?
>> + */
>> +static inline bool wq_has_sleeper(wait_queue_head_t *wq)
>> +{
>> + /* We need to be sure we are in sync with the
>
> broken comment style.
This is how we do it in the networking, so that's why it's formatted
this way, but yes he will need to fix it up.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
