[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527060923.GD28295@kryten>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:09:23 +1000
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh
> > [PATCH v2] net: fix lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh
> >
> > This new sock lock primitive was introduced to speedup some user context
> > socket manipulation. But it is unsafe to protect two threads, one using
> > regular lock_sock/release_sock, one using lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh
> >
> > This patch changes lock_sock_bh to be careful against 'owned' state.
> > If owned is found to be set, we must take the slow path.
> > lock_sock_bh() now returns a boolean to say if the slow path was taken,
> > and this boolean is used at unlock_sock_bh time to call the appropriate
> > unlock function.
> >
> > After this change, BH are either disabled or enabled during the
> > lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh protected section. This might be misleading,
> > so we rename these functions to lock_sock_fast()/unlock_sock_fast().
> >
> > Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>
> Looks good, I'll wait for positive testing from Anton before applying
> this.
Thanks guys, this fixed it.
Tested-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Anton
--
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