Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:23:36PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>>
>>>>@@ -202,7 +201,6 @@ void gen_kill_estimator(struct gnet_stats_basic
>>>>*bstats,
>>>> struct gen_estimator *est, **pest;
>>>>
>>>> for (idx=0; idx <= EST_MAX_INTERVAL; idx++) {
>>>>- int killed = 0;
>>>> pest = &elist[idx].list;
>>>> while ((est=*pest) != NULL) {
>>>
>>>So, maybe this list walking here needs some locking too?
>>
>>It depends on whether estimators should be able to rely on
>>the rtnl in the future or be completely responsible for their
>>own locking. My patch yesterday was made under the assumption
>>that they shouldn't rely on external locking, which seemed to
>>be the right thing for a "generic" implementation. OTOH its
>>still specific to networking, so relying on the rtnl doesn't
>>sound too unreasonable too. I'm beginning to thing I made
>>the wrong choice with my patch.
>>
>>I'm busy right now, would you mind looking into a patch that
>>only deals with the timer races, but still relies on the
>>rtnl?
>
>
> In that case this patch looks OK & enough.
Its overkill in that case. The concurrent additions and removals
can't happen.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
