| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:20:07 -0800 |
| Cc: | kaber@xxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050402004956.GA24339@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050214221006.GA18415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050214221200.GA18465@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050214221433.GB18465@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050214221607.GC18465@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424864CE.5060802@xxxxxxxxx> <20050328233917.GB15369@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424B40C2.90304@xxxxxxxxx> <20050331004658.GA26395@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331212325.5e996432.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050402004956.GA24339@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:49:56 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The second patch creates a dead lock since it does a nested read > lock. The solution is simply to get rid of xfrm_init_tempsel > and call the afinfo version directly. read locks nest even in the presence of pending writers |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | IPSEC: on behavior of acquire, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |