Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:44:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:44:47 -0500 Received: from smtp2.free.fr ([212.27.32.6]:14353 "EHLO smtp2.free.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:44:36 -0500 To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ? Message-ID: <974960072.3a1cb5c821d96@imp.free.fr> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:14:32 +0100 (MET) From: Willy Tarreau Cc: Willy Tarreau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200011221809.VAA20851@ms2.inr.ac.ru> In-Reply-To: <200011221809.VAA20851@ms2.inr.ac.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 212.27.48.151 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > It is linux-2.2, guy. 8) "threads" are not threaded there. > > Semaphores (rtnl_lock, particularly) protects only areas, which > are going to _schedule_ excplicitly or implicitly. ok, thanks a lot Alexey, now I understand. > Please, read comments. People used to consider comments as something > decorative, but they are not. I did read them again and again, but you know, when there's something you don't understand, sometimes you interprete things badly. > Any questions? not anymore, of course :-) > Sorry... > > /* NOTE: these locks are not interrupt safe, are not SMP safe, > * they are even not atomic. 8)8)8) ... and it is not a bug. > etc. > > Do you call this "very precautios"? 8) I spoke about the first ones :) thanks a lot, now I know how to proceed. Cheers, Willy - 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/