* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >
> > BTW, the locking in -mm's net/unix/af_unix.c::unix_stream_connect()
> > differs a bit from stock unix_stream_connect(). I see spin_lock_bh() in
> > 2.6.17-rc5-mm3 where 2.6.17-rc5 has spin_lock().
>
> Hi Ingo:
>
> Looks like this change was introduced by the validator patch. Any
> idea why this was done? AF_UNIX is a user-space-driven socket so there
> shouldn't be any need for BH to be disabled there.
yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock
will have to get per-address family locking rules - right?
Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and
still having all other protocols share the locking rules for
sk_receive_queue.lock) , by reinitializing its spinlock after
sock_init_data()?
Ingo
-
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
