On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> I took a quick look at the original ipc code and I don't understand
> something - it seems to me the ipc_ids structs are protected by the semaphore
> inside for all operations, so why do we need the spinlock in the
> first place ? Am I missing something here ?
I made that mistake too at first, Mingming set me straight.
Many of the entry points down() the ipc_ids.sem semaphore, but the
most significant ones do not. ipc/sem.c is probably the best example
(if confusing, since it involves quite different meanings of semaphore):
sys_semop() is the frequent, fast entry point, uses sem_lock without down.
Hugh
-
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 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:55 EST