Quoting Paul Menage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It does feel like it may be too much designed for one particular user > > (i.e. is there a reason not to expect a future cgroup to need a check > > under a spinlock before a check under a mutex - say an i_sem - in the > > can_attach sequence?), > > It would be fine as long as the code didn't want to *keep* holding the > spinlock after the first check, while taking the mutex - and since > that style of code is invalid under the existing locking rules, I > don't see that as a problem. There's nothing to stop a > prepare_attach_sleep() method from taking a spinlock as long as it > releases it before it returns. > > Paul
Good point. For some stupid reason i was thinking don't take a spinlock at all. Have you started an implementation? thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
