* Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +, 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
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:38:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock
will have to get per-address family locking rules - right?
Yes that's the issue.
Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and
still
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
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +, 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
