Re: tbl->lock not taken in neigh_lookup() ?

Hi All: Can I get some insights into this? I am sure I am missing something. thanks ani On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ani Sinha wrote: > hi guys > > As per the comment at the top of net/core/neighbor.c we should be > taking this lock even for scanning the hash buckets. I

Re: tbl->lock not taken in neigh_lookup() ?

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 10:11 +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > Hi All: > > Can I get some insights into this? I am sure I am missing something. > > thanks > ani > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ani Sinha wrote: > > hi guys > > > > As per the comment at the top of

Re: tbl->lock not taken in neigh_lookup() ?

From: Ani Sinha Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:11:15 +0530 > Can I get some insights into this? I am sure I am missing something. The whole point of RCU locking is that read accesses in the fast paths (lookups) do not need to take the spinlock. Proper RCU barriers, RCU deferred

tbl->lock not taken in neigh_lookup() ?

hi guys As per the comment at the top of net/core/neighbor.c we should be taking this lock even for scanning the hash buckets. I do see that this lock is taken in pneigh_lookup() but not in neigh_lookup(). Am i missing something? For the context I am investigating the following crash which