On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:28:27PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:31:42AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> Replace the gross custom locking done in socket code for net_family[]
> >> with simple RCU usage. Some reordering necessary to avoid sleep
> >> issues wi
>
>On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:31:42AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> Replace the gross custom locking done in socket code for net_family[]
>> with simple RCU usage. Some reordering necessary to avoid sleep
>> issues with sock_alloc.
>
>Definitely a good use of RCU from a read-intensive standpoi
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:31:42AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Replace the gross custom locking done in socket code for net_family[]
> with simple RCU usage. Some reordering necessary to avoid sleep
> issues with sock_alloc.
Definitely a good use of RCU from a read-intensive standpoint -- do
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:31:42 -0700
> Replace the gross custom locking done in socket code for net_family[]
> with simple RCU usage. Some reordering necessary to avoid sleep
> issues with sock_alloc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTEC
Replace the gross custom locking done in socket code for net_family[]
with simple RCU usage. Some reordering necessary to avoid sleep
issues with sock_alloc.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/socket.c | 171 +--
