[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150313.125411.1315810617883806607.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:54:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tgraf@...g.ch
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 net-next] rhashtable: Use spin_lock_bh_nested()
consistently
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:45:20 +0100
> No change in behaviour as the outer lock already disables softirq
> but it prevents bugs down the line as this lock logically requires
> the BH variant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
I would prefer you don't do this.
x_bh() may be relatively cheap, but it is not zero cost.
If there is an invariant that when we are called here BH
is disabled, make it explicit.
--
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