On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:05:42 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:06:51PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:25:26 -0400 > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:26PM -0400, bfields wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:40:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > In fact, I don't think you really need to take a reference till there's > > > > a chance the new thread will decrement the reference--and since the > > > > first thing the new thread does is take the mutex (which we're also > > > > holding here), you could wait till after the succesful kthread_create() > > > > to take the reference. But maybe that's more fragile. So I'd just > > > > move the module_get to right before the kthread_create(). > > > > > > Anyway, that's very minor, and this all seems OK otherwise, so I might > > > make this one small modification and just apply if there's no further > > > comments. > > > > > > --b. > > > > Thanks. That sounds right to me. Let me know if you want me to formally > > respin the patch instead. > > I went ahead and applied with that one change; results are in > > git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git for-2.6.27 > > Thanks! It'll be good to have this taken care of. > > --b. > Thanks for the cleanup and the patience through the different patch gyrations... Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
