Re: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ?

[Paul Wagland]

On Mar 9, 2004, at 20:30, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:27:41 +0200
> "Viorel Canja, Softwin" <vcanja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't  "write_lock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);" be moved before
> > "req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[h];" to avoid a race condition ?
>
> Nope, the listening socket's socket lock is held, and all things that
> add members to these hash chains hold that lock.

Is that the same as saying that the write_lock() is not needed at all? 
Since it is already guaranteed to be protected with a different lock?

Cheers,
Paul

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part