Re: [PATCH] uevent: send events in correct order according to seqnum

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:14:04AM +0400, avagin@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 01:03 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 21:06, Andrew Vagin<avagin@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>
> >>The queue handling in the udev daemon assumes that the events are
> >>ordered.
> >>
> >>Before this patch uevent_seqnum is incremented under sequence_lock,
> >>than an event is send uner uevent_sock_mutex. I want to say that code
> >>contained a window between incrementing seqnum and sending an event.
> >>
> >>This patch locks uevent_sock_mutex before incrementing uevent_seqnum.
> >
> >I think we can remove the spin_lock(&sequence_lock); entirely now, right?
> 
> I thought about that too. sequence_lock is used when CONFIG_NET
> isn't defined. I've looked on this code one more time and we may
> leave only uevent_sock_mutex and use it even when CONFIG_NET isn't
> defined.
> Thanks for the comment.
> 
> Greg, do you have other objections about this patch?

Let's see the one based on Kay's comments first please.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/