On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:38:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock > will have to get per-address family locking rules - right?
Yes that's the issue. > 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()? This could work. AF_UNIX is probably the only family that does not interact with hardware. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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
