Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:46:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from kaber.coreworks.de ([62.206.217.67]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBV9jlYY008228 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:46:07 -0800 Received: from eru.coreworks.de ([172.16.0.2] helo=trash.net) by kaber.coreworks.de with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CkJTw-0005XW-3Y; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <41D52176.80703@trash.net> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:52:54 +0100 From: Patrick McHardy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hadi@cyberus.ca CC: Thomas Graf , "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API References: <20041230122652.GM32419@postel.suug.ch> <20041230123023.GO32419@postel.suug.ch> <41D4A4D2.4000109@trash.net> <1104469362.1049.224.camel@jzny.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1104469362.1049.224.camel@jzny.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/645/Mon Dec 27 14:56:20 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on 127.0.0.1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 13279 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: kaber@trash.net Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev jamal wrote: > On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 20:01, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>This isn't right (its also wrong in the current code). If the >>CPU reorders stores and another CPU looks at dst->action at >>the wrong time it might see an inconsistent structure. > > > I think an xchg around the else should fix this. Yes. >>I also wonder if anyone >>actually knows why we need the xchg (here and in all the other >>places), it looks totally useless. > > All these were put in by Alexey and the LinuxWay(tm) took effect. > an xchg puts almost a lock and ensures an atomic swap. I dont see any > harm in leaving it as is - just needs fixing the else No real harm, but it still should be removed IMO, or used _instead_ of tcf_tree_lock in this place. I've asked myself multiple times what it is meant for and I've seen others do the same, this alone justifies removing it. Another reason is what you call LinuxWay(tm), strange things spread on their own and at some time you have to touch lots of files to get rid them. So its best to do it as early as possible. Regards Patrick