Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932280AbZD1Oyk (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:54:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754579AbZD1Oy0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:54:26 -0400 Received: from tomts40.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.97]:44305 "EHLO tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754378AbZD1OyZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:54:25 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsIEAByz9klMQW1W/2dsb2JhbACBUM14g3MF Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:49:20 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: David Miller Cc: mingo@elte.hu, dada1@cosmosbay.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, shemminger@vyatta.com, zbr@ioremap.net, peterz@infradead.org, jarkao2@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kaber@trash.net, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV} Message-ID: <20090428144920.GA28942@Krystal> References: <20090428124033.GA1655@elte.hu> <20090428.064340.193569214.davem@davemloft.net> <20090428135219.GA28513@Krystal> <20090428.073759.78537345.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090428.073759.78537345.davem@davemloft.net> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 10:46:42 up 59 days, 11:12, 2 users, load average: 0.24, 0.33, 0.30 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: 1378 Lines: 34 * David Miller (davem@davemloft.net) wrote: > From: Mathieu Desnoyers > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:52:19 -0400 > > > The local_bh_disable() could be outside of the locking construct. This > > would make it easier to adapt it to various users (irq disable, bh > > disable, preempt disable) depending on the contexts from which they much > > be protected. > > > > And if it still does not work for some reason, using a #define is > > discouraged, but could work. > > That's what I was hoping to avoid, things like macros and having > the callers of this thing expand the two parts of the operation. > > What's the point in making this generic if it ends up being ugly > as hell? .. and what's the point in making it generic if it can be replaced by a proper RCU implementation ? :-) I am not convinced of the added value we get in making it a generic header this soon. I would wait for other users to express similar needs, otherwise this could soon become an orphaned piece of locking code. Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- 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/