Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:41:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:41:01 -0500 Received: from dfmail.f-secure.com ([194.252.6.39]:45070 "HELO dfmail.f-secure.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:40:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:23:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits To: Tigran Aivazian cc: , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] NR_RESERVED_FILES broken in 2.4 too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > problem (e.g. you mentioned something about allocating more than NR_FILES > on SMP -- what do you mean?) which you are not explaining clearly. E.g. situation, only one file struct left for allocation. One CPU goes into get_empty_filp and before kmem_cache_alloc unlocks file_list, another CPU gets also into get_empty_filp and locks file_list at the top and goes on the same path, the end result potentially can be both will increase nr_files instead of only one. But I don't think it's a big issue at *present* that could cause any problems ... > You just say "it is broken and here is the patch" but that, imho, is not > enough. (ok, one could overcome the laziness and actually _read_ your > patch to see what you _think_ is broken but surely it is better if you > explain it yourself?). Sorry I didn't explain, I thought it's short enough and significantly faster to understand reading the code then my poor English ;) Szaka - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/