Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759679AbZDOLbJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:31:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758221AbZDOLav (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:30:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48140 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753931AbZDOLau (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:30:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:28:14 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko To: Patrick McHardy 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 Message-ID: <20090415112813.GH21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> 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> <49E5C378.9020209@trash.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49E5C378.9020209@trash.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1065 Lines: 34 Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:22:32PM CEST, kaber@trash.net wrote: > 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. Yes, I see that. > >>>> + >>>> + 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. > Noted... -- 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/