Re: [PATCH] 2.2 PPP driver SMP-safe

• Next message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: freeing a static after one use only?"
• Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Congrats to Richard Gooch"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2 PPP driver SMP-safe"
• Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2 PPP driver SMP-safe"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox wrote:

> Figure the real bug.

I did, it was that ppp->tty_pushing was tested in one statement and set in
another a bit further down. The way it used to be done handled the
concurrency between mainline and bottom halves (without blocking either)
but wasn't good enough for SMP.

Now it uses test_and_set_bit instead to make it atomic.

> help. To start with set_bit is defined to be atomic

Well, yes, that's what I thought too, that's why I used it.

--
Paul Mackerras, Senior Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc.
+61 2 6262 8990 tel, +61 2 6262 8991 fax
paulus@linuxcare.com.au, http://www.linuxcare.com.au/
Linuxcare.  Support for the revolution.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: freeing a static after one use only?"
• Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Congrats to Richard Gooch"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2 PPP driver SMP-safe"
• Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2 PPP driver SMP-safe"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:26 EST