[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090415144204.GI21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:42:05 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dada1@...mosbay.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
fubar@...ibm.com, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mschmidt@...hat.com, ivecera@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: introduce a list of device addresses
dev_addr_list
Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:13:57PM CEST, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:27:50 +0200
>>
>>> Since you obviously need a write lock here to be sure following
>>> can be done by one cpu only.
>>>
>>> You have same problem all over this patch.
>>
>> RTNL semaphore is held across all modification operations.
>
> If this will also be used for multicast lists, changes can happen
> (IPv6) without the RTNL.
Ok, but for dev_addr_X() functions the RTNL mutex is sufficient so I see no
point of adding another lock here. When the multicast handling functions will be
implemented to use netdev_hw_addr and it's layer, then we need to use update
lock in dev_multicast_X.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists