[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49ED406F.2040401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:41:35 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> +/**
> + * xt_table_info_rdlock_bh - recursive read lock for xt table info
> + *
> + * Table processing calls this to hold off any changes to table
> + * (on current CPU). Always leaves with bottom half disabled.
> + * If called recursively, then assumes bh/preempt already disabled.
> + */
> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> +{
> + struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> +
> + preempt_disable();
> + lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> + if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
Maybe I missed something. I think softirq may be still enabled here.
So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?
> + spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
> + preempt_enable_no_resched();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
> +
Is this OK for you:
void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
{
struct xt_info_lock *lock;
local_bh_disable();
lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
spin_lock(&lock->lock);
}
Lai.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists