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
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
>>>
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
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