From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754495Ab0EJP5k (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 11:57:40 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:28739 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753681Ab0EJP5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 11:57:37 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=QttTllYmYGKaFA399kpQmYL9Nxf+ggCsCyr4W/Lm4GPn2gxU2RKdzDF9yLeuf8QX90 tw0DCSeP2a3p/8X11ExjIxgTV/ATMAV6juW/1X6hJtbYiLj6LhsuM3CWOeA95ucRC5ND 62mVObQOd7FNMf7dH1FZq4j7jp1Ek04ZmIbp0= Subject: Re: mmotm 2010-04-28 - RCU whinges From: Eric Dumazet To: Patrick McHardy Cc: David Miller , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <1273506968.2221.19.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1272865137.2173.179.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1272865267.2173.180.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1272865436.2173.182.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20100502.225509.233880079.davem@davemloft.net> <4BE8290A.2080707@trash.net> <1273506968.2221.19.camel@edumazet-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 17:57:31 +0200 Message-ID: <1273507052.2221.20.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:40 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit : > > David Miller wrote: > > > From: Eric Dumazet > > > Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 07:43:56 +0200 > > > > > >> Le lundi 03 mai 2010 à 07:41 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Oops scratch that, I'll resend a correct version. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Sorry, patch _is_ fine, I had one brain collapse when re-reading it, I > > >> thought a different mutex was in use in one of the functions. > > > > > > Ok, Patrick please review, thanks. > > > > Actually we don't need the rcu_dereference() calls at all since > > registration and unregistration are protected by the mutexes. > > > > I queued this patch in nf-next, the only reason why I haven't > > submitted it yet is that I was unable to get git to cleanly export > > only the proper set of patches meant for -next due to a few merges, > > it insists on including 5 patches already merged upstream. If you > > don't mind ignoring the first 5 patches in the series, I'll send a > > pull request tonight. > > > > > This will clash with upcoming RCU patches, where rcu protected pointer > cannot be directly accessed without lockdep splats. > Sorry, I meant sparse here, not lockdep. > We will need one day or another a rcu_...(nf_conntrack_event_cb)