On 12/21/2013 8:57 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 12/21/13 13:54, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> -int osm_db_store(IN osm_db_domain_t * p_domain) >> +int osm_db_store(IN osm_db_domain_t * p_domain, >> + IN boolean_t fsync_high_avail_files) > > Version two of this patch looks fine to me, but while reviewing this > patch I noticed two issues in osm_db_store() that might need to be > addressed: > * With p_domain_imp->dirty == FALSE cl_spinlock_release() is called > without having invoked cl_spinlock_acquire() first. Can the 'dirty' flag > be modified concurrently with the test of the 'dirty' flag ? If so, the > test of this flag probably has to occur after the spinlock has been > acquired.
Yes; I'll fix this in a subsequent patch. > * If the malloc() call for allocating the temporary file name fails then > strcpy() will be called with NULL as first argument. Shouldn't the > return value of malloc() be checked ? Ditto. Thanks. -- Hal > Thanks, > > Bart. > > -- 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
