On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:08:49AM -0700, jjohansen@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > + } else if (profile1 > profile2) {
> > + /* profile1 cannot be NULL here. */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&profile1->lock, profile1->int_flags);
> > + if (profile2)
> > + spin_lock(&profile2->lock);
> > +
> > + } else {
> > + /* profile2 cannot be NULL here. */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&profile2->lock, profile2->int_flags);
> > + spin_lock(&profile1->lock);
> > + }
>
> Ahem...
>
> profile2 is locked individually. profile1 > profile2. profile1 is not
> locked. We try to lock both. profile1 is locked OK, flags (with interrupts
> disabled) are stored into it. We spin trying to lock profile2. Eventually,
> whoever had held profile2 unlocks it, restoring the flags from profile2.
> We happily grab the spinlock and move on. When we unlock the pair, we
> restore flags from profile1. I.e. we are left with interrupts disabled.
Please, ignore - shouldn't have posted without coffee... Flags would be
for different CPUs in that case, obviously.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
