[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1266638850.2839.6.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:07:30 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] af_key: locking change
Le vendredi 19 février 2010 à 13:59 -0800, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> pièce jointe document texte brut (pfkey-rcu.patch)
> Get rid of custom locking that was using wait queue, lock, and atomic
> to basically build a queued mutex. Use RCU for read side.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Excellent
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
I dont know why you used synchronize_sched() instead of
synchronize_rcu().
I prefer _rcu() variant because its all about rcu after all, and fact it
is mapped to synchronize_sched() is an implementation detail.
(I am not saying implementation doesnt matter, Paul :) )
> }
>
> static struct proto key_proto = {
> @@ -223,6 +177,7 @@ static int pfkey_release(struct socket *
> sock_orphan(sk);
> sock->sk = NULL;
> skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_write_queue);
> + synchronize_sched();
> sock_put(sk);
>
> return 0;
--
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