On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jamal wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-09 at 11:04 -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jamal wrote:
>
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&xfrm_state_lock);
> >
> > Shouldn't this be spin_lock_bh()?
> >
> > + spin_unlock(&xfrm_state_lock);
> > +
>
> the call is made at the moment only by pktgen (kernel threads on
> dev_queue_xmit level contending with softirqs essentially). I think
> (although havent tried) the spin_{un}lock_bh() wont work. Thoughts?
If bh's are already disabled when you call this, it'll be ok, but as this
will be a generally exported function, I'd suggest using bh locking. I
guess you could also make a xfrm_stateonly_find_bh() to be called only
with bh's disabled, if needed.
- James
--
James Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
VGER BF report: U 0.523211
-
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
