netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Apr 2005 18:20:17 -0400
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050404213149.GA15222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1112406164.1088.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050402014619.GB24861@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112469601.1088.173.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112538718.1096.394.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404005805.GA16543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112614706.1096.439.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404121641.GA12103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112619096.1088.473.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404130224.GA12546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112620614.1088.489.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404213149.GA15222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
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?

cheers,
jamal




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>