[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372931404.4979.88.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:50:04 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: replace xfrm_policy_afinfo_lock spinlock with
mutex
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:53 +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> index e52cab3..27768ba 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xfrm_policy_sk_bundle_lock);
> static struct dst_entry *xfrm_policy_sk_bundles;
> static DEFINE_RWLOCK(xfrm_policy_lock);
>
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xfrm_policy_afinfo_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(xfrm_policy_afinfo_lock);
Why is it needed, and why is it safe ?
Is it a bug fix ? If answer is no please read :
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg242161.html
This mutex or spinlock is not really needed anyway.
Check commit e0386005ff2a729 for a starting point.
("net: inet_add_protocol() can use cmpxchg()")
But do not send a patch until David reopens net-next.
--
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