Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:59:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:59:23 -0500 Received: from smtp2.Mountain.Net ([198.77.1.5]:35728 "EHLO nabiki.mountain.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:59:08 -0500 Message-ID: <39FE39EF.62CC880B@mountain.net> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:18:07 -0500 From: Tom Leete X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-t10p5-kdb i486) X-Accept-Language: en-US,en-GB,en,fr,es,it,de,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4 skbuff locking scope In-Reply-To: <39FDF518.A9F1204D@mountain.net> <200010302224.OAA02266@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:24:24 -0500 > From: Tom Leete > > This fixes tests of a socket buffer done without holding the > lock. tcp_data_wait() and wait_for_tcp_memory() both had > unguarded refs in their sleep conditionals. > > These are not buggy at all, see the discussion which took place here > over the past few days. I'll post traces privately. It was my lockups that got Rick interested. > Look, if the sleep condition test "races" due to not holding the lock, > the schedule() just returns because if the sleep condidion test passes > then by definition this means we were also woken up, see? Would you explain what is accomplished by toggling the lock every time through? What breaks by not doing so? > BTW, while we're on the topic of people not understanding the > networking locking and proposing bogus patches, does anyone know who > sent the bogon IP tunneling locking "fixes" to Linus behind my back? Not me, but see below. > They were crap too, and I had to revert them in test10-pre7. It's > another case of people just not understanding how the code works and > thus that it is correct without any changes. If it's perfect why can't I use it without locking up the machine? BTW, I'm currently running my patch. I can now flood ping 100000 packets in either direction. With unmodified tcp that is a red switcher (reliably hard locks all i/o including the serial console). > Please send such fixes to me, and I'll set you straight with a > description as to why your change is unnecessary :-) Perhaps that's why somebody wants to bypass you. Tom Leete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/