On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Roland Dreier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Did you consider taking the QP's rwsem for writing across these operations > instead? How did that approach compare? > I considered this but that means that you serialize attach/detach operations at ib core. Using a spinlock to protect the list allows more concurrency. After all, we hit this bug since concurrency of such operations occur in real life applications.
> Assuming there's some problem with that, would it make sense to put > the mcast_lock next to the mcast_list in struct ib_uqp_object, instead of > hiding it in struct ib_qp? > Yes, it makes more sense to me. If it is agreed to use a spinlock and put it next to mcast_list I will prepare another patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
