[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1472567238.14381.297.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:27:18 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Amir Vadai <amir@...ai.me>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirva@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 4/4] net/sched: Introduce act_tunnel_key
On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 16:17 +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:05:03AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >
> > old = rtnl_dereference(mykey->p);
> > if (ovr)
> > spin_lock_bh(&mykey->tcf_lock);
> Thanks for the detailed example :)
>
> what are we protecting with this spin lock here? isn't concurrent init()
> calls are protected by the rtnl lock?
Right. RTNL should be enough here for the write exclusion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists