On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I would really appreciate it, if you are going to come up with a new
locking primitive that you implement that locking primitive separately.
Using some rmw insn to avoid a lock is hardly implementing a new locking
primitive. This was never the purp
Including a few more relevant people in the Cc list.
Davidlohr Bueso writes:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> The access rules around nsproxy are quite clear about who reads and
> writes to a task's nsproxy. In fact, up until 728dba3a39c (namespaces:
> Use task_lock and not rcu to protect nsproxy),
2 matches
Mail list logo
