Re: [patch] POSIX advisory mode lock panic fix by Dfly
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:01:08AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about lf_count_adjust() ... why is it changing
> the newowner pointer? Maybe you meant newowner->ui_posixlocks +=
> instead of newowner += ?
Yeah, typo.
> lf_count_increment() is still entanged with the resource check.
> lf_count_increment() should be integrated with or called from
> the allocation code, and the resource check should be done
> separately. lf_count_decrement() should be integrated with the
> structure freeing code. When you have the increment/decrement
> disconnected the way it is in the patch, chances are very high that
> bugs will creep in.
I'm going to think about the whole lock handling in kern_lockf.c, I have
the slight feeling I can simplify it and do the allocation properly at the
same time.
Joerg
>
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <dillon@backplane.com>
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 11 之 17 篇)：