[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091206185309.GB3870@ami.dom.local>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:53:09 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] inetpeer: optimizations
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 07:22:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> AFAICS this lock here can only to prevent double linking to the
> unused_peers list during such transitions. If so, it could be replaced
> with the list_empty(&p->unused) test before list_add_tail(), and
> atomic_dec_test() without the lock would be enough (unless I miss
> something ;-).
Hmm... But I missed something: the last atomic_dec() should be done
under the lock yet, so let's forget it.
Jarek P.
--
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