From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:38:07 +0200
> yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock
> will have to get per-address family locking rules - right?
That's right.
> Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and
> still having all other protocols share the locking rules for
> sk_receive_queue.lock) , by reinitializing its spinlock after
> sock_init_data()?
AF_NETLINK and/or AF_PACKET might be in a similar situation
as AF_UNIX.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
