[PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:46:20AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On further reflection, this probably would be safe after all. Since we
> don't call put_container_group() in attach_task() until after
> synchronize_rcu() completes, that implies that a container_group_get()
> from the RCU section would have already completed. So we should be
> fine.

Right.

Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand
the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words
in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write
just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together
with the use of RCU.


-- 
Regards,
vatsa