Re: inode_lock "decorative"?

Eleonora Autore (ely@ns1.avnet.co.uk)
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:22:58 +0000 (GMT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] smp-2.3.30-A1, mb(), wmb(), rmb()"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: dual pIII network / lockup problems"
In reply to: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "Re: inode_lock "decorative"?"

ah, ok. So can I remove the lock/unlock_kernel around get_empty_inode()
everywhere, in particular in net/socket.c:sock_alloc() now?

(and especially the comment calling upon the name of my adversary around
it - "Damn..." :)

Tigran.

On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:

> Hello!
>
> > I.e. get_empty_inode() looks SMP-safe to me. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing that this code was merged in 2.3.15 and
> was not updated since 2.3.18. 8)
>
> Alexey Kuznetsov
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] smp-2.3.30-A1, mb(), wmb(), rmb()"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: dual pIII network / lockup problems"
In reply to: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "Re: inode_lock "decorative"?"