Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:55:44 -0800
From: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry
Message-ID: <20051230215544.GI27284@gaz.sfgoth.com>
References: <1135973075.6039.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1135978110.6039.81.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1135978110.6039.81.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 848
Lines: 18

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I've added a global remove_proc_lock to protect this section of code.  I
> was going to add a lock to proc_dir_entry so that the locking is only
> cut down to the same parent, but since this function is called so
> infrequently, why waste more memory then is needed.  One global lock
> should not cause too much of a headache here.

Are you sure that it's the only place where we need guard ->subdir?  It
looks like proc_lookup() and proc_readdir() use the BLK when walking that
list, so probably the best fix would be to use that lock everywhere else
->subdir is touched

-Mitch
-
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/