On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 04:42:21AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > On May 3, 2022, at 17:16, Alexander Bluhm <alexander.bl...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > ???Hi, > > > > We have one comment that locking for ratecheck(9) is missing. In > > all other places locking status of the struct timeval *lasttime > > is unclear. > > > > The easiest fix is a global mutex for all lasttime in ratecheck(). > > This covers the usual usecase of the function. > > Why not declare a struct ratecheck with > a per-struct mutex?
Because that diff is more work. It is the cleaner solution, but touches a lot of code. > It seems odd to be heading toward more > parallel processing in e.g. the networking > stack and introduce a global point of > contention. I don't expect contention on the rate limit. Make things stable, run in parallel, tweak performance. That's why I have chosen this aproach. But if it is too dirty, I can create the larger diff. bluhm
