On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:30:37PM +0900, Makito SHIOKAWA wrote: >> Maybe I'm wrong, but since this read_lock() is given and taken anyway, >> it seems this looks a bit better to me (why hold this rtnl longer >> than needed?): >> read_unlock(&bond->lock); >> rtnl_unlock(); >> read_lock(&bond->lock); > Seems better. > >> On the other hand, probably 'if (bond->kill_timers)' could be repeated >> after this read_lock() retaking. > Sorry, what do you mean? (A case that bond->kill_timers = 1 is done during > lock retaking, and work being queued only to do 'if (bond->kill_timers)'? > If so, I think that won't differ much.)
Probably the difference is not much, but since this all double locking, unlocking and something between could take a while, and such a check looks cheaper than re-queueing... But I don't persist in this. Jarek P. -- 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
