| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [timers] net/ipv4 |
| From: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:07:23 +1000 |
| References: | <3933B0B2.50AB5EA1@xxxxxxxxxx> from "Andrew Morton" at May 30, 0 10:14:42 pm <200005301659.UAA12445@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
I've revisited net/ipv4/* and I agree it's safe. kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > OK as long as always called from BH context. > > Forget about this argument. I was assuming that the network rx path was called from bh_action() and hence that timers are serialised wrt network rx, But not process context. I see now that network rx is a softirq and is async wrt timers, which makes things tougher. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | (fwd) Re: sin_zero question, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: (fwd) Re: sin_zero question, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [timers] net/ipv4, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | [timers] net/core/*, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |