[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:32:29 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: inetpeer with create==0
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:39:37 +0100
> Le mercredi 02 mars 2011 à 22:42 -0800, David Miller a écrit :
>> Actually, back to the original topic, I wonder how bad it is to simply
>> elide the recheck in the create==0 case anyways. Except for the ipv4
>> fragmentation wraparound protection values, perfect inetpeer finding
>> is not necessary for correctness. And IPv4 fragmentation always calls
>> inetpeer with create!=0.
>
> We could use a seqlock, to detect that a writer might have changed
> things while we did our RCU lookup ?
That would certainly work.
--
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