On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:25 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> I thought the retention of RCU locking was reasonable, and that your
> feedback was something I disagreed with.
>
> This is different from ignoring your feedback.
The point is we don't need to backport the patch that far, as I already
menti
From: Cong Wang
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:23:37 -0700
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> wrote:
>>
>> What games are you playing? You know how patches are processed by David
>> and I even let him the choice by pointing out a problem in your patch so
>> that you could an upd
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
>
> What games are you playing? You know how patches are processed by David
> and I even let him the choice by pointing out a problem in your patch so
> that you could an update and send v2.
I assume David goes over all the discussion b
From: Cong Wang
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:58:31 -0700
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Sabrina Dubroca
>> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200
>>
>>> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
>>> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict(
On Fr, 2014-09-05 at 11:58 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Sabrina Dubroca
> > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200
> >
> >> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
> >> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200
>
>> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
>> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict()
>>
>> ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock
From: Sabrina Dubroca
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200
> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict()
>
> ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock_ac_drop(), ipv6_sock_ac_close() need to
> take RTNL before ca
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>
> v2:
> - based on net
> - keep dev_get_by_flags_rcu and RCU in ipv6_sock_ac_*
> - remove two ASSERT_RTNL() that are not necessary
There is no point to keep RCU here. Hannes' reply doesn't make
any sense.
--
To unsubscribe from this list
On Di, 2014-09-02 at 10:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict()
>
> ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock_ac_drop(), ipv6_sock_ac_close() need to
> take RTNL before callin
Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict()
ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock_ac_drop(), ipv6_sock_ac_close() need to
take RTNL before calling ipv6_dev_ac_inc/dec. Same thing with
ipv6_sock_mc_join(), ipv6_so
10 matches
Mail list logo
