On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:53:07 +0100
Stefano Brivio wrote:
> But to make that effective, you would need to protect the read too, and
> that makes your optimisation not really overzealous I think.
>
> I'd rather go with an additional comment, if that doesn't become
> unreadable.
Oh, and of
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:58:05 +
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 13:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:25:52 +
> > Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 09:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> >> > Hi Vlad,
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:55:45
On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 13:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:25:52 +
> Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
>> On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 09:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>> > Hi Vlad,
>> >
>> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:55:45 +0200
>> > Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >
>> >> @@ -179,9 +179,25 @@ static
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:25:52 +
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 09:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > Hi Vlad,
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:55:45 +0200
> > Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -179,9 +179,25 @@ static void tcf_proto_destroy_work(struct work_struct
> >> *work)
> >>
On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 09:40, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:55:45 +0200
> Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
>> @@ -179,9 +179,25 @@ static void tcf_proto_destroy_work(struct work_struct
>> *work)
>> rtnl_unlock();
>> }
>>
>> +/* Helper function to lock rtnl mutex when
Hi Vlad,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:55:45 +0200
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> @@ -179,9 +179,25 @@ static void tcf_proto_destroy_work(struct work_struct
> *work)
> rtnl_unlock();
> }
>
> +/* Helper function to lock rtnl mutex when specified condition is true and
> mutex
> + * hasn't been locked
As a preparation for registering rules update netlink handlers as unlocked,
conditionally take rtnl in following cases:
- Parent qdisc doesn't support unlocked execution.
- Requested classifier type doesn't support unlocked execution.
- User requested to flash whole chain using old filter update
