From: Pierre Peiffer Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:40:55 +0000 (-0700) Subject: IPC: cleanup some code and wrong comments about semundo list managment X-Git-Tag: v2.6.24-rc1~161 X-Git-Url: https://err.no/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c530c6ac7eb1d4ae1ff6b382d9211be446ee82c6;p=linux-2.6 IPC: cleanup some code and wrong comments about semundo list managment Some comments about sem_undo_list seem wrong. About the comment above unlock_semundo: "... If task2 now exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock(). ..." This is just wrong, I see no reason for which task1 will not call spin_unlock... The rest of this comment is also wrong... Unless I miss something (of course). Finally, (un)lock_semundo functions are useless, so remove them for simplification. (this avoids an useless if statement) Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer Cc: Nadia Derbey Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c index 40ab34d832..7617f4f34e 100644 --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -999,36 +999,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semctl (int semid, int semnum, int cmd, union semun arg) } } -static inline void lock_semundo(void) -{ - struct sem_undo_list *undo_list; - - undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list; - if (undo_list) - spin_lock(&undo_list->lock); -} - -/* This code has an interaction with copy_semundo(). - * Consider; two tasks are sharing the undo_list. task1 - * acquires the undo_list lock in lock_semundo(). If task2 now - * exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling - * unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock(). - * This leave the sem_undo_list in a locked state. If task1 now creats task3 - * and once again shares the sem_undo_list, the sem_undo_list will still be - * locked, and future SEM_UNDO operations will deadlock. This case is - * dealt with in copy_semundo() by having it reinitialize the spin lock when - * the refcnt goes from 1 to 2. - */ -static inline void unlock_semundo(void) -{ - struct sem_undo_list *undo_list; - - undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list; - if (undo_list) - spin_unlock(&undo_list->lock); -} - - /* If the task doesn't already have a undo_list, then allocate one * here. We guarantee there is only one thread using this undo list, * and current is THE ONE @@ -1089,9 +1059,9 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid) if (error) return ERR_PTR(error); - lock_semundo(); + spin_lock(&ulp->lock); un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid); - unlock_semundo(); + spin_unlock(&ulp->lock); if (likely(un!=NULL)) goto out; @@ -1114,10 +1084,10 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid) new->semadj = (short *) &new[1]; new->semid = semid; - lock_semundo(); + spin_lock(&ulp->lock); un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid); if (un) { - unlock_semundo(); + spin_unlock(&ulp->lock); kfree(new); ipc_lock_by_ptr(&sma->sem_perm); ipc_rcu_putref(sma); @@ -1128,7 +1098,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid) ipc_rcu_putref(sma); if (sma->sem_perm.deleted) { sem_unlock(sma); - unlock_semundo(); + spin_unlock(&ulp->lock); kfree(new); un = ERR_PTR(-EIDRM); goto out; @@ -1139,7 +1109,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid) sma->undo = new; sem_unlock(sma); un = new; - unlock_semundo(); + spin_unlock(&ulp->lock); out: return un; } @@ -1315,10 +1285,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semop (int semid, struct sembuf __user *tsops, unsigned nsop /* If CLONE_SYSVSEM is set, establish sharing of SEM_UNDO state between * parent and child tasks. - * - * See the notes above unlock_semundo() regarding the spin_lock_init() - * in this code. Initialize the undo_list->lock here instead of get_undo_list() - * because of the reasoning in the comment above unlock_semundo. */ int copy_semundo(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)