On Thu, 17 May 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> Thx Davi, patch is correct. Nice catch. But at this point instead of
> ending up getting two locks, we may look into using Andrew suggestion of
> reusing the waitqueue lock. Is it universally considered a "legal"
> operation?
Yes. Perhaps not fo
On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > poll_wait() callback may modify the waitqueue without holding the
> > context private lock.
>
> Thx Davi, patch is correct. Nice catch. But at this poi
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:
> Hi,
>
> poll_wait() callback may modify the waitqueue without holding the
> context private lock.
Thx Davi, patch is correct. Nice catch. But at this point instead of
ending up getting two locks, we may look into using Andrew suggestion of
reusing the
Hi,
poll_wait() callback may modify the waitqueue without holding the
context private lock.
Signed-off-by: Davi E. M. Arnaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/fs/eventfd.c b/fs/eventfd.c
index 480e2b3..9c672be 100644
--- a/fs/eventfd.c
+++ b/fs/eventfd.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ int eventfd_signal(struc
4 matches
Mail list logo