On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:20:12 +0200 Petr Pavlu <petr.pa...@suse.com> wrote:
> I agree, I also noticed the missing locking in this function and it > looked to me as something that should be fixed. I happen to have > a somewhat more complex patch for it from a few months ago (pasted > below). I think I didn't send it to the list because I then noticed > other potential locking problems with the subbuf code, which I wanted to > examine more closely first. > Hmm, I think you are correct that the buffer->mutex isn't enough for the sub buffer page and it requires a bigger window. I'll look at your patch and also the logic to see if it can be squeezed down a little. -- Steve
