Re: routing sockets vs KERNEL_LOCK()

2017-06-06 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:03:33PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 05/06/17(Mon) 16:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 05/06/17(Mon) 12:12, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > Routing sockets are not protected by the NET_LOCK(). That's one of the > > > boundaries of the network stack. That's whhy

Re: routing sockets vs KERNEL_LOCK()

2017-06-06 Thread Hrvoje Popovski
On 6.6.2017. 13:03, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 05/06/17(Mon) 16:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote: >> On 05/06/17(Mon) 12:12, Martin Pieuchot wrote: >>> Routing sockets are not protected by the NET_LOCK(). That's one of the >>> boundaries of the network stack. That's whhy claudio@ sent some diffs >>>

Re: routing sockets vs KERNEL_LOCK()

2017-06-06 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 05/06/17(Mon) 16:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 05/06/17(Mon) 12:12, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > Routing sockets are not protected by the NET_LOCK(). That's one of the > > boundaries of the network stack. That's whhy claudio@ sent some diffs > > to no longer require the KERNEL_LOCK() to

Re: routing sockets vs KERNEL_LOCK()

2017-06-05 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 05/06/17(Mon) 12:12, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Routing sockets are not protected by the NET_LOCK(). That's one of the > boundaries of the network stack. That's whhy claudio@ sent some diffs > to no longer require the KERNEL_LOCK() to protect them. > > But right now some rtm_* functions can be