[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1r5o5azpg.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:10:35 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why does connector use a work queue???
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:57:02PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com) wrote:
>> These days netlink callbacks for messages happen in the context of the
>> process who sent the message. Things like permission checks are much
>> more complicated if we don't use that process context.
>>
>> I was looking at removing NETLINK_CB(skb).eff_cap but I discovered
>> that connected takes the netlink messages, them from their
>> perfectly good process context, and puts the into a workqueue
>> for reasons that are not apparent to me.
>
> Netlink was made synchronous rather recently and connector was not
> changed to take advantage of that. Previously it used work queue to
> postpone work processing into always-process context.
I suspected it was something like that but I want to be certain.
>> Unless I am misreading something we should just be able to remove the
>> work queues and greatly simplify the connector code.
>>
>> Something like:
>
> Idea looks very good, thank you, but it misses structure changes
> to eliminate now unneded members.
Right. I didn't trust myself to write a patch that would rip out half
of the connector code until I understood what the constraints were.
Eric
--
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