On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 12:09 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:13:09 +0200
>
> > Now a question for netdev: what is the interrupt-or-softirq rules for
> > the sk_receive_queue.lock?
> >
> > Anyway, the patch below fixes this deadlock; it may or may not be the
> > correct solution depending on the netdev answer, but the deadlock is
> > gone ;)
>
> The lockdep fixes are starting to cause us to go in and start adding
> hard IRQ protection to many socket layer objects and I want this
> thinking to end quickly :)
that's why I asked the question ;)
> To reiterate, nothing socket or SKB level should be taking anything
> deeper than software IRQ locking.
>
> If drivers manage local SKB queues in hard IRQ context, they need to
> use a seperate lockdep identifier for that queue's lock.
I'm not so sure that;s the case here, but.. if you have time today I
hope you can take a look at this one with a wider "network view" than I
can..
-
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]
