On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41:12PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > That said, I can see that you have tried to keep the original code path > pretty much intact. I would note that you introduced rcu calls into the !bpf > path that would never have been done before. While that should be ok, I > would really like to see it tested, at least for the !bpf case, on real > hardware to be sure.
please go ahead and test. rcu_read_lock is zero extra instructions for everything but preempt or debug kernels.
