From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien?= Aptel Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] CIFS: make IPC a regular tcon Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:33:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87r2qmxc2e.fsf@suse.com> References: <20180117172200.3221-1-aaptel@suse.com> <20180117172200.3221-3-aaptel@suse.com> <87607z4fyr.fsf@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Pavel Shilovskiy , "linux-cifs\@vger.kernel.org" , "smfrench\@gmail.com" To: Pavel Shilovsky Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Pavel Shilovsky writes: > I agree that accessing ses->tcon_ipc is not necessary to be under > spinlock. Btw, why should we put this tcon to the list at the 1st > place? We can leave to be accessed only by ses->tcon_ipc and do not > bother with spinlocks at all. I thought about it. Initially I thought I could reuse tcon get/put functions but since its not the case (no mount points refer to the IPC tcon so it's special) I agree it would make more sense now. -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)