From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:38:07 +0200
> yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock > will have to get per-address family locking rules - right? That's 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()? AF_NETLINK and/or AF_PACKET might be in a similar situation as AF_UNIX. - 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
