[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140714.185150.757251885307832898.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ying.xue@...driver.com
Cc: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, shan.hai@...driver.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] xfrm: remove useless hash_resize_mutex
locks
From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:33:41 +0800
> In xfrm_policy.c, hash_resize_mutex is defined as a local variable
> and only used in xfrm_hash_resize() which is declared as a work
> handler of xfrm.policy_hash_work. But when the xfrm.policy_hash_work
> work is put in the global workqueue(system_wq) with schedule_work(),
> the work will be really inserted in the global workqueue if it was
> not already queued, otherwise, it is still left in the same position
> on the the global workqueue. This means the xfrm_hash_resize() work
> handler is only executed once at any time no matter how many times
> its work is scheduled, that is, xfrm_hash_resize() is not called
> concurrently at all, so hash_resize_mutex is redundant for us.
>
> Additionally hash_resize_mutex defined in xfrm_state.c can be removed
> as the same reason.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
This looks correct to me:
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
--
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