Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically either there is some missing locking here or it does not > need to be "atomic_t". Judging from the way it *appears* to be used > to check if cache entries are up-to-date with the latest changes in > policy, I would guess the former.
You're right that it doesn't really have to be an atomic since all the writers are from xfrm currently. However, the fact that it is atomic is used by the current code since sometimes they increment the value without holding the xfrm policy lock. Yes it is racy but that is fine for the purpose that this variable serves. All it does is to make sure that extant flow objects get killed at some point after the increment. There is absolutely no requirement that the killing be immediate or synchronised. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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
