On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:30:40PM -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> >during sg_open and sg_release, which are guranteed not to migrate
> >to a different process during their run time.
>
> True. What I stated would be a problem if a mutex tried
> to do something similar to Vaughan's patch that was
>
On 13-11-06 10:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking at
their semantics (mutex.h versus semaphore.h), a mutex
takes into account the task owner. If the user space
wants to pass around a s
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking at
> their semantics (mutex.h versus semaphore.h), a mutex
> takes into account the task owner. If the user space
> wants to pass around a sg file descriptor in a Unix
> domain socke
On 2013年11月03日 02:22, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 13-11-01 01:16 AM, vaughan wrote:
I do not follow the last point but that is not important.
For reasons that I listed in a private post I think
that my patch presented in this thread is closer to
our goals than your patch (2013/6/17/319). Timing
On 13-11-01 01:16 AM, vaughan wrote:
On 11/01/2013 03:20 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 13-10-31 11:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and
releases */
Seems like this should be a mutex.
Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking
On 11/01/2013 03:20 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 13-10-31 11:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> +struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and
>>> releases */
>>
>> Seems like this should be a mutex.
>
> Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking at
> their semantics (mu
On 11/01/2013 03:20 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 13-10-31 11:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> +struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and
>>> releases */
>>
>> Seems like this should be a mutex.
>
> Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking at
> their semantics (mu
On 13-10-31 11:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+ struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and releases */
Seems like this should be a mutex.
Yes, it is being used as a mutex. However looking at
their semantics (mutex.h versus semaphore.h), a mutex
takes into account the ta
> + struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and releases */
Seems like this should be a mutex.
> sfds_list_empty(Sg_device *sdp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdp->sfd_lock, flags);
> + ret = list_empty(&sdp->sfds);
> +
This is v2 of a patch presented a few days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=138282446708844&w=2
Vaughan Cao's patch is still in lk 3.12-rc7 but it is
assumed that it will be reverted before lk 3.12 release.
Further testing raised some issues when the device was removed
(detached) while bei
10 matches
Mail list logo
