* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Stefan Richter wrote: > > > > BTW, the locking in -mm's net/unix/af_unix.c::unix_stream_connect() > > differs a bit from stock unix_stream_connect(). I see spin_lock_bh() in > > 2.6.17-rc5-mm3 where 2.6.17-rc5 has spin_lock(). > > Hi Ingo: > > Looks like this change was introduced by the validator patch. Any > idea why this was done? AF_UNIX is a user-space-driven socket so there > shouldn't be any need for BH to be disabled there.
yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock will have to get per-address family locking rules - right? Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and still having all other protocols share the locking rules for sk_receive_queue.lock) , by reinitializing its spinlock after sock_init_data()? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html