| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy() |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:35:09 -0700 |
| Cc: | kaber@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050404115508.GA12171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4250160D.2040405@xxxxxxxxx> <20050404012040.GA16960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404115508.GA12171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:55:08 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The read_lock()'s only need to be protected from the write_lock()'s. > > Since all the write_lock()'s are made in process context, we don't > need to disable BH on the read_lock()'s. This is correct. It's actually a common technique, only disable IRQ or BH in the write_locks. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] fix uninitialized proto_list_lock, Benjamin LaHaise |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] fix uninitialized proto_list_lock, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy(), Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Checking SPI in xfrm_state_find, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |