On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 18:33 +0200, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >> Thanks for the detailed answer !! > > You're welcome. > >> >> BTW you went 5 steps ahead of my original question :)), so far you >> already have a patch without locking at all (really impressive). >> >> What i wanted to ask originally, was regarding the "_bh", i didn't >> mean to completely remove the "spin_lock_bh", >> I meant, what happens if we replace "spin_lock_bh" with "spin_lock", >> without disabling bh ? >> I gues raw "sping_lock" handles points (2 to 4) from above, but it >> won't handle long irqs. > > Thats a very good point, the _bh prefix can totally be removed, since > stats_lock is only acquired from process context. > >
That was my initial point, Thanks for the help. will provide a fix patch later once 4.9 is release.
