Re: BUG in shared_policy_replace() ?

[Steve Longerbeam]

Hugh Dickins wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
>  
>
> > Why free the shared policy created to split up an old
> > policy that spans the whole new range? Ie, see patch.
> >    
>
> I think you're misreading it.  That code comes from when I changed it
> over from sp->sem to sp->lock.  If it finds that it needs to split an
> existing range, so needs to allocate a new2, then it has to drop and
> reacquire the spinlock around that.  It's conceivable that a racing
> task could change the tree while the spinlock is dropped, in such a
> way that this split is no longer necessary once we reacquire the
> spinlock.  The code you're looking at frees up new2 in that case;
> whereas in the normal case, where it is still needed, there's a
> new2 = NULL after inserting it, so that it won't be freed below.
>  

got it, except that there is no "new2 = NULL;" in 2.6.10-mm2!

Looks like it was misplaced, because I do see it now in 2.6.10.

Steve

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/