[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <547E6FDF.2040809@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:05:19 +0800
From: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: remove useless spin_lock/spin_unlock
On 12/03/2014 09:57 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 09:32 +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
>> xchg is atomic, so there is no necessary to use spin_lock/spin_unlock
>> to protect it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> index e1a9583..92ca907 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
>> @@ -112,9 +112,7 @@ struct ipv6_txoptions *ipv6_update_options(struct sock *sk,
>> }
>> opt = xchg(&inet6_sk(sk)->opt, opt);
>> } else {
>> - spin_lock(&sk->sk_dst_lock);
>> opt = xchg(&inet6_sk(sk)->opt, opt);
>> - spin_unlock(&sk->sk_dst_lock);
>> }
>> sk_dst_reset(sk);
>>
>
> Why keeping 2 copies of opt = xchg(&inet6_sk(sk)->opt, opt); then ?
>
Thanks for you remind, i didn't notice that.
The else statement could be removed, opt = xchg(&inet6_sk(sk)->opt, opt); should be
moved out, and i will send v2.
Thanks,
Duan
>
>
>
--
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