Jan Kiszka wrote:
> [ The refactored version according to our discussion. ]
>
> This patch fixes the race when the claimed bit changes between the lock
> less check an the entry of the nklock-protected section.
Applied, thanks.
--
Gilles.
___
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
>>> convinced to go your way (with a
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
>> convinced to go your way (with a modification):
> My app
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
convinced to go your way (with a modification):
>>> My approach sucks: we get a silly atomic_cmpxchg if the mutex is alre
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
> convinced to go your way (with a modification):
My approach sucks: we get a silly atomic_cm
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
>>> convinced to go your way (with a modification):
>> My approach sucks: we get a silly atomic_cmpxchg if the mutex is already
>> claimed, which is as least a
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
forgot about this fact and even, worse, I
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
>> convinced to go your way (with a modification):
>
> My approach sucks: we get a silly atomic_cmpxchg if the mutex is already
> claimed, which is as least as much a common case a
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> OTOH, we can safe some text size which is precious as well. So I'm
> convinced to go your way (with a modification):
My approach sucks: we get a silly atomic_cmpxchg if the mutex is already
claimed, which is as least as much a common case as a currently
unclaimed mutex. Need to
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
> forgot about th
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
>>> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
>>> forgot about this fact and even, worse, I only replace the original race
>>>
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
forgot about this fact and even, worse, I
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
>> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
>> forgot about this fact and even, worse, I only replace the original race
>> with another one.
>>
>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
> forgot about this fact and even, worse, I only replace the original race
> with another one.
>
> So here comes a new attempt to fix
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
>> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
>> forgot about this fact and even, worse, I only replace the original race
>> with another one.
>>
>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Patch 2 of my fast lock series actually also contained an attempt to fix
> a race I spotted in the code that atomically sets the claimed bit. I
> forgot about this fact and even, worse, I only replace the original race
> with another one.
>
> So here comes a new attempt to fix
16 matches
Mail list logo
