Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rose, Billy" <> | Subject | RE: Segfault hidden in list.h | Date | Sun, 12 May 2002 20:10:03 -0500 |
| |
I stand corrected. I guess my philosophy is for the long sought after "prefect world" example...
Cheers :)
Billy Rose wrose@loislaw.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: Linus Torvalds [mailto:torvalds@transmeta.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:59 PM > To: Rose, Billy > Cc: Kernel Mailing List > Subject: Re: Segfault hidden in list.h > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2002, Rose, Billy wrote: > > > > If something is accessing the list in reverse at the time > of insertion and > > "next->prev = new;" has been executed, there exists a > moment when new->prev > > No. > > If the coder doesn't lock his data structures, it doesn't > matter _what_ > order we execute the list modifications in - different > architectures will > do different thing with inter-CPU memory ordering, and trying to order > memory accesses on a source level is futile. > > Linus > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |