| To: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] kill rtnl_exlock stubs |
| From: | Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 29 Jul 2004 09:16:28 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alexey <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20040727095057.78c7419c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | ZNYX Networks |
| References: | <20040727095057.78c7419c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 12:50, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> @@ -404,13 +402,8 @@
> return -1;
> }
>
> - if (kind != 2) {
> - if (rtnl_exlock_nowait()) {
> - *errp = 0;
> - return -1;
> - }
> + if (kind != 2)
> exclusive = 1;
> - }
>
> memset(&rta, 0, sizeof(rta));
>
> @@ -439,14 +432,10 @@
> goto err_inval;
> err = link->doit(skb, nlh, (void *)&rta);
>
> - if (exclusive)
> - rtnl_exunlock();
> *errp = err;
> return err;
>
> err_inval:
> - if (exclusive)
> - rtnl_exunlock();
> *errp = -EINVAL;
> return -1;
> }
This piece is the only one i would worry about.
I dont remember the historical reasoning for rtnl_ex* I know its not
useful as is right now. OTOH, if it was useful then the above code would
have meant something. Dave/Alexey?
cheers,
jamal
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (3/4) bridge linkstate handling, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [PATCH] (3/4) bridge linkstate handling, Eble, Dan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kill rtnl_exlock stubs, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kill rtnl_exlock stubs, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |