On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It does feel like it may be too much designed for one particular user > (i.e. is there a reason not to expect a future cgroup to need a check > under a spinlock before a check under a mutex - say an i_sem - in the > can_attach sequence?), It would be fine as long as the code didn't want to *keep* holding the spinlock after the first check, while taking the mutex - and since that style of code is invalid under the existing locking rules, I don't see that as a problem. There's nothing to stop a prepare_attach_sleep() method from taking a spinlock as long as it releases it before it returns. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
