netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Apr 2005 18:42:55 -0400
Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kaber@xxxxxxxxx, nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050404152506.15e1404b.davem@davemloft.net>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1112406164.1088.54.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050402014619.GB24861@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112469601.1088.173.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1112538718.1096.394.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404005805.GA16543@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112614706.1096.439.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404121641.GA12103@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112619096.1088.473.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404130224.GA12546@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112620614.1088.489.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404213149.GA15222@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112653217.1088.2.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404152506.15e1404b.davem@davemloft.net>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:25, David S. Miller wrote:

> If you only take write_lock() from process context, only the write_lock()'s
> need BH disabling.  read_lock() takers can then nest arbitrarily, BH or not.

Ok, never mind - Ive made the change. 
As soon as Masahide tests i will post the final patch.

cheers,
jamal


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>