Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 12/26] Uprobes: Handle breakpoint and Singlestep

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:31 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-26 15:59:13]:
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:32 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > 						Hence provide some extra
> > > + * time (by way of synchronize_sched() for breakpoint hit threads to acquire
> > > + * the uprobes_treelock before the uprobe is removed from the rbtree. 
> > 
> > 'Some extra time' doesn't make me all warm an fuzzy inside, but instead
> > screams we fudge around a race condition.
> 
> The extra time provided is sufficient to avoid the race. So will modify
> it to mean "sufficient" instead of "some".   
> 
> Would that suffice?

Much better, for extra point, explain why its sufficient as well ;-)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]