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

["David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04 Apr 2005 18:20:17 -0400
jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 17:31, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:16:55AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ok, fair enough. It annoys me too when i review patches ;->
> > > So i will fix this before final.
> > 
> > Just one more thing, can you please remove the _bh's that you
> > added to the read_lock for xfrm_km_list? It turns out that they're
> > not necessary since the write_lock()'s are only held in process
> > context.
> 
> Doesnt the policy notification one need it at least ? I thought it is
> entered at interupt context on packet path, no?

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.