On 2024/8/5 16:23, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
On 02.08.24 03:55, Wen Gu wrote:
On 2024/7/31 18:32, shaozhengchao wrote:
Hi Wen Gu:
"The operations to link group buffer list should be protected by
sndbufs_lock or rmbs_lock" It seems that the logic is smooth. But will
this really happen? Because no process is in use with the link group,
does this mean that there is no concurrent scenario?
Hi Zhengchao,
Yes, I am also very conflicted about whether to add lock protection.
From the code, it appears that when __smc_lgr_free_bufs is called, the
link group has already been removed from the lgr_list, so theoretically
there should be no contention (e.g. add to buf_list). However, in order
to maintain consistency with other lgr buf_list operations and to guard
against unforeseen or future changes, I have added lock protection here
as well.
Thanks!
I'm indeed in two minds about if I give you my reviewed-by especially on the reason of unforeseen bugs. However, previously the most bugs on locking we met in our code are almost because of deadlocks caused by too much different locks introduced. Thus, I don't think this patch is necessary at lease
for now.
OK, let's handle it when it causes actual problems. Thanks!
Thanks,
Wenjia
