Hi Sridhar Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > Vlad, > > few minor comments inline. > otherwise, looks good. > > Thanks > Sridhar > >> diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> index f8aa23d..54ff472 100644 >> --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> @@ -77,13 +77,18 @@ >> >> #include <asm/uaccess.h> >> >> -/* Event handler for inet6 address addition/deletion events. */ >> +/* Event handler for inet6 address addition/deletion events. >> + * This even is part of the atomic notifier call chain >> + * and thus happens atomically and can NOT sleep. As a result >> + * we can't and really don't need to add any locks to guard the >> + * RCU. >> + */ > > Now that we are adding a spin_lock, the above comment is not valid. > It should be fixed saying that we still need a lock because we use the > same list for both inet and inet6 address events and they can happen in > parallel.
Yes, I forgot to fix this comment. Will do. >> diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c >> index e98579b..4688559 100644 >> --- a/net/sctp/protocol.c >> +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c >> @@ -153,6 +153,8 @@ static void sctp_v4_copy_addrlist(struct list_head >> *addrlist, >> addr->a.v4.sin_family = AF_INET; >> addr->a.v4.sin_port = 0; >> addr->a.v4.sin_addr.s_addr = ifa->ifa_local; >> + addr->valid = 1; >> + INIT_RCU_HEAD(&addr->rcu); > > This has nothing to do with this patch, but i noticed that > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&addr->list) is missing here when comparing with > earlier v6 version of this routine. Hmm... I thought it looked a little different, but didn't pay too much attention to it. I'll add a follow-on patch to fix this. Thanks -vlad - 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
