On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 17:20 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static inline struct sem_array *sem_obtain_object(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int id)
> > +{
> > + struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp = ipc_obtain_object(&sem_ids(ns), id);
> > +
> > + if (IS_ERR(ipcp))
> > + return (struct sem_array *)ipcp;
>
> This should use ERR_CAST() to make it more obvious what's going on.
>
> > +static inline struct sem_array *sem_obtain_object_check(struct ipc_namespace *ns,
> > + int id)
> > +{
> > + struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp = ipc_obtain_object_check(&sem_ids(ns), id);
> > +
> > + if (IS_ERR(ipcp))
> > + return (struct sem_array *)ipcp;
>
> Same here.
Ok
>
> > +/*
> > + * Call inside the rcu read section.
> > + */
> > +static inline void sem_getref(struct sem_array *sma)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&(sma)->sem_perm.lock);
> > + ipc_rcu_getref(sma);
> > + ipc_unlock(&(sma)->sem_perm);
> > +}
>
> This really makes me wonder if we shouldn't just use an atomic counter
> for "refcount". But I guess that would be a separate patch.
>
Ah, yes indeed.
> But all the uses of refcount really look like the normal atomic ops
> migth be the right thing. Especially if we no longer expect to hold
> the lock most of the time.
>
> > + spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
>
> I really would almost want to make these things be "ipc_lock_object()"
> rather than an open-coded spinlock like this. But that's not a big
> deal.
Sure.
>
> Patch looks fine to me in general.
>
Thanks for taking a look!
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|