netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net-next] tuntap: convert to 64-bit interface statistics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <550B6124.7070001@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:52:04 -0400
From:	Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Curt Brune <curt@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next] tuntap: convert to 64-bit interface statistics

On 3/19/15 6:56 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:56 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>
>
>> Or are you suggesting per-cpu counters would be preferred which would
>> possibly eliminate the need for this lock?
>
> Might be overkill for a device that is probably used by one cpu,
> considering you defined a full  struct rtnl_link_stats64, instead of the
> fields that are really handled.
>

Ok. So summarizing for v2, so far; eliminating the back-to-back lock -> 
release -> lock -> release is preferred (I agree with this).

It still seems like you are not a huge fan of the additional lock, 
should I hold off on sending v2 for a day, so we can ponder alternatives?
--
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