On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 17:50 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Having the caller lock the table would save lots of atomic operation > in case of netlink_clear_multicast_users.
Good point. > > +void netlink_clear_multicast_users(int unit, unsigned int group) > > Same as in the last patch, passing the kernel socket would be nicer IMO. Changed. > > + read_lock(&nl_table_lock); > > Won't this deadlock? netlink_table_grab takes a write-lock. I guess it's valid to update a read lock to a write lock? Or I was just lucky on UP. But moving the lock out of netlink_clear_multicast_users() made this obvious and I just use the write lock now. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
