Re: Patch for review: resolve a race condition in [sg]etpriority()

On Thursday 22 February 2007 12:51, LI Xin wrote:
Hi, John,

John Baldwin wrote:
My only reason for favoring the wakeup for complete initialization is that
while this patch may solve the getprio/setprio race, it doesn't solve all
PRS_NEW-related races, which the sleep/wakeup proposal did.

Today I have some time and tried your approach for a second time. It
looks like that we can not simply sleep with allproc_lock held. The
attached patchset implements the proof-of-concept idea, please let me
know if you think this one is better.

Ok. It would actually be really nice if we could not put the process onto
the allproc list until it was really fully created. Is the only reason we put
it on the list to prevent duplicate pid allocation?

--
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages