James Carlson wrote:
Dan McDonald writes:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:20:01PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
Holding a lock across putnext is just a programming error. How far do
we have to go to protect against programming errors? (Should the
stack check for freed mblks?)
So Jim, are you saying that I *could* call crypto synchronously because the
correct behavior is not to hold locks? If so, that's encouraging for the HW
crypto folks in the audience.
I think Garrett's right that you may well get punished by bad drivers,
so that's potentially a risk.
Getting back to the original question, exactly how long are you
blocking and why would you block?
One of the reasons would be from
kmem_alloc(.., KM_SLEEP);
I assume we are in interrupt context when in ip_input()? If so, all the
allocations have to be with KM_NOSLEEP.
Regards,
-Krishna
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
