RE: Segfault hidden in list.h

From: Rose, Billy (wrose@loislaw.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 20:10:03 EST


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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 12:00:19 EST