Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759437AbZDOLW5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:22:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757542AbZDOLWp (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:22:45 -0400 Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:57070 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752831AbZDOLWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:22:44 -0400 Message-ID: <49E5C378.9020209@trash.net> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:22:32 +0200 From: Patrick McHardy User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jiri Pirko CC: Eric Dumazet , Li Zefan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, fubar@us.ibm.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mschmidt@redhat.com, ivecera@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list References: <20090313183303.GF3436@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090415081720.GA21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090415081819.GB21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49E59A1C.9030108@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090415083223.GF21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49E5A896.90408@cosmosbay.com> <20090415111724.GG21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090415111724.GG21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 951 Lines: 29 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Since you obviously need a write lock here to be sure following >> can be done by one cpu only. >> >> You have same problem all over this patch. > > Yes, as Dave wrote, this is guarded by RTNL mutex. This was incorrect. IPv6 adds multicast addresses in softirq context. >>> + >>> + ha = kzalloc(sizeof(*ha), GFP_ATOMIC); >> kzalloc(max(sizeof(*ha), L1_CACHE_SIZE), GFP_...) is thus higly recommended here. >> >> Also, why GFP_ATOMIC is needed here ? > > Yes, it is not needed here. I've copied it here from the original unicast and > multicast add funtion to stay close but as I can see, there is no need for it > there either. > Noted. Also needed for IPv6 in softirq context. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/