[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] ipc: perform conditional locking while changing the port seq
Re: [PATCH] ipc: perform conditional locking while changing the port sequence number
Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:02:09 +0200
On 07.09.2013 10:46:18, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Marin Ramesa, le Sat 07 Sep 2013 10:17:29 +0200, a écrit :
> > We have a local variable mqueue that is set by the lock, but if you
> > look at the definition of imq_unlock() and then simple_unlock()
> > members of mqueue just change state and they don't have any effect
> > on any other variable,
> Sure, that is what usually happens for a locking/unlocking primitive
> pair: its only purpose is to change the state of the lock, and the
> side effect is obtained simply because other portions of the code use
> the same lock (imq_lock), to protect the same thing (the seqno).
> > plus it's a local variable - I would understand the code if
> > mqueue is more global, but it's not.
> The local variable is simply used to store the queue associated with
> the port, in order to be able to unlock it.
I completely misunderstood the code and the simple locks. No patch is
needed and there is no real bug. Sorry if I have taken up your time. My
misunderstanding and GCC (ver. 4.7.2) set-but-unused warning about
mqueue got me thinking that there's no real locking happening when
MACH_SLOCKS is not defined.
Also, thanks for the above quoted explanation.