From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 05:18:24 +0200
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> inet_forward_change() runs with RTNL held.
> We are allowed to sleep if required.
>
> If we use __in_dev_get_rtnl() instead of __in_dev_get_rcu(),
> we no longer have to use GFP_ATOMIC allocations in
> inet_netco
Le 08/07/2016 05:18, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> inet_forward_change() runs with RTNL held.
> We are allowed to sleep if required.
>
> If we use __in_dev_get_rtnl() instead of __in_dev_get_rcu(),
> we no longer have to use GFP_ATOMIC allocations in
> inet_netconf_notify_devco
From: Eric Dumazet
inet_forward_change() runs with RTNL held.
We are allowed to sleep if required.
If we use __in_dev_get_rtnl() instead of __in_dev_get_rcu(),
we no longer have to use GFP_ATOMIC allocations in
inet_netconf_notify_devconf(), meaning we are less likely to miss
notifications under
