Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree that accessing ses->tcon_ipc is not necessary to be under > spinlock. Btw, why should we put this tcon to the list at the 1st > place? We can leave to be accessed only by ses->tcon_ipc and do not > bother with spinlocks at all. I thought about it. Initially I thought I could reuse tcon get/put functions but since its not the case (no mount points refer to the IPC tcon so it's special) I agree it would make more sense now. -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
