Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> Just a couple of points:
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:36:10AM -0400, Tom Leete wrote:
> [...]
> > +spinlock_t proc_alloc_map_lock = RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> > +
> Why not make this static?
> Initializer should be SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED.
>
Thanks, you're right on both counts.
Linus, Alan, this version is more correct. I also checked for other uses of
proc_alloc_map[], The only case is in deallocation, and it looks ok to me.
Tom
--
The Daemons lurk and are dumb. -- Emerson
diff -u linux-2.4.3/fs/proc/generic.c.orig linux-2.4.3/fs/proc/generic.c
--- linux-2.4.3/fs/proc/generic.c.orig Thu Apr 5 10:03:02 2001
+++ linux-2.4.3/fs/proc/generic.c Thu Apr 5 10:22:48 2001
@@ -192,13 +192,22 @@
static unsigned char proc_alloc_map[PROC_NDYNAMIC / 8];
+spinlock_t proc_alloc_map_lock = RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+
static int make_inode_number(void)
{
- int i = find_first_zero_bit((void *) proc_alloc_map, PROC_NDYNAMIC);
- if (i<0 || i>=PROC_NDYNAMIC)
- return -1;
+ int i;
+ spin_lock(&proc_alloc_map_lock);
+ i = find_first_zero_bit((void *) proc_alloc_map, PROC_NDYNAMIC);
+ if (i<0 || i>=PROC_NDYNAMIC) {
+ i = -1;
+ goto out;
+ }
set_bit(i, (void *) proc_alloc_map);
- return PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST + i;
+ i += PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST;
+out:
+ spin_unlock(&proc_alloc_map_lock);
+ return i;
}
static int proc_readlink(struct dentry *dentry, char *buffer, int buflen)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
