Hi Dave:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:23:38PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ken-ichirou MATSUZAWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that because ipcomp_alloc_tfms() calls smp_processor_id(),
> > but a comment says not need locking. Is this right?
>
> Yes the comment is right. I'll fix it up.
This patch fixes a false-positive from debug_smp_processor_id().
The processor ID is only used to look up crypto_tfm objects.
Any processor ID is acceptable here as long as it is one that is
iterated on by for_each_cpu().
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c b/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c
--- a/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static struct crypto_tfm **ipcomp_alloc_
int cpu;
/* This can be any valid CPU ID so we don't need locking. */
- cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
list_for_each_entry(pos, &ipcomp_tfms_list, list) {
struct crypto_tfm *tfm;
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c b/net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c
--- a/net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ipcomp6.c
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static struct crypto_tfm **ipcomp6_alloc
int cpu;
/* This can be any valid CPU ID so we don't need locking. */
- cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
list_for_each_entry(pos, &ipcomp6_tfms_list, list) {
struct crypto_tfm *tfm;
