Sean Hefty wrote:
I wasn't clear on this before, but we shouldn't need to take the spinlock here at all now. We needed it before in order to check the state and increment dev_remove in one operation. Once the spinlock was released the state could have changed, but dev_remove would have halted the device removal thread. Under the new method, device removal is halted while we hold the handler_mutex.
OK, got it.
This can end up trying to acquire the mutex twice. We could change this to mutex_lock(); if (id_priv->state == CMA_ADDR_BOUND || id_priv->state == CMA_ADDR_RESOLVED)
OK, will do so. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
