lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On 06/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> + if (drop_boost_mutex) {
> + rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
> complete(&rnp->boost_completion);

Well, I still do not understand this ->boost_completion...

> - /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> + /* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
> wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);

OK, at least we have a comment.

But let me repeat. Thomas has already fixed rt_mutex, unlock is atomic.
It doesn't touch this memory after it makes another lock() possible.

And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt
converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ?

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-18 19:21    [W:0.126 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site