Hello!
> timer events where the protocol specs require immediate reaction and
> which need to change socket state. For such events, it might not
> be obvious how to defer them when sk->lock.users != 0.
After some thinking, you will understand that "timer" and "immediate"
are incompatible.
TCP just defers such events, look into tcp_timer.c.
Yes, you are right: the problem exists and you can try to
solve this f.e. queueing special control events to backlog.
> when sk->lock.users!=0. Is there a particular reason why such task queue
> does not exist?
Because it appeared to be useless overhead. I also believed that
it will be required in tcp, but one day I understood that all the problems
of these kind dissolved. 8)
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
