[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1293791353.5193.1.camel@wall-e>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:29:13 +0100
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDPCP Communication Protocol
Am Freitag, den 31.12.2010, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> Le vendredi 31 décembre 2010 à 10:29 +0100, stefani@...bold.net a
> écrit :
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&spinlock, flags);
> > + udpcp_stat.txMsgs++;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&spinlock, flags);
>
> This is really ugly for different reasons :
>
> 1) Naming a lock, even static "spinlock" is ugly.
Agree...
> 2) Using a lock for stats is not necessary, and
> disabling hard irqs is not necessary either (spinlock_bh() would be
> more than enough)
>
> At a very minimum, you should use atomic_t so that no lock is needed
>
> 3) Network stack widely use MIB per_cpu counters.
> As you use UDP, you could take a look at UDP_INC_STATS_BH()/
> UDP_INC_STATS_USER() implementation for an example.
>
I will have look at this and revamp it.
--
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