From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, kaber@trash.net,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com,
paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu, 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,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:00:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090417150047.GB6742@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090417.010710.59150850.davem@davemloft.net>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:07:10AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:40:32 -0700
>
> > I completely agree that this RCU is absolutely -not- 2.6.30 material. ;-)
>
> I don't understand why we're writing such complicated code.
>
> Oh I see why, it's because not every arch uses the generic SMP helpers
> yet :-)
;-)
> Because if they did universally, we could solve this problem so
> simply, by merely sending a remote softirq to every online cpu. Once
> those all complete we have enough of a quiesce period, every cpu must
> have exited any netfilter packet processing code path they were in.
>
> And we could know they complete using an atomic counter or something.
I was with you until you got to the atomic counter, which would require
dealing with CPU hotplug.
But your point is a very good one. We already do have a flavor of
RCU that waits for softirq code, namely rcu-bh. And it is used
exclusively by the networking code:
14 net/ipv4/
13 net/decnet/
10 net/core/
6 net/ipv6/
4 kernel/ [rcutorture, so these four uses don't count.]
3 net/netfilter/
2 net/mac80211/
2 net/packet/
So both yours and Peter's implicit point is quite correct -- the kernel
really does not need yet another flavor of RCU. So maybe I should instead
be thinking in terms of making the existing rcu-bh be better adapted to
the networking code, like maybe a fast synchronize_rcu_bh().
Or do the networking uses of rcu-bh need it to work exactly the way that
it does now?
Thanx, Paul
kernel/rcutorture.c __acquires 392 rcu_read_lock_bh();
kernel/rcutorture.c __releases 398 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
kernel/rcutorture.c rcu_bh_torture_deferred_free 408 call_rcu_bh(&p->rtort_rcu, rcu_torture_cb);
kernel/rcutorture.c rcu_bh_torture_synchronize 429 call_rcu_bh(&rcu.head, rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb);
net/core/dev.c dev_queue_xmit 1844 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/core/dev.c dev_queue_xmit 1909 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/core/dev.c dev_queue_xmit 1915 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_filter 88 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_filter 95 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_filter_delayed_uncharge 477 call_rcu_bh(&fp->rcu, sk_filter_rcu_release);
net/core/filter.c sk_attach_filter 517 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_attach_filter 520 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_detach_filter 532 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/core/filter.c sk_detach_filter 539 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dnrt_free 148 call_rcu_bh(&rt->u.dst.rcu_head, dst_rcu_free);
net/decnet/dn_route.c dnrt_drop 154 call_rcu_bh(&rt->u.dst.rcu_head, dst_rcu_free);
net/decnet/dn_route.c __dn_route_output_key 1161 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c __dn_route_output_key 1170 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c __dn_route_output_key 1175 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_cache_dump 1623 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_cache_dump 1634 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_cache_dump 1639 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_rt_cache_get_first 1659 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_rt_cache_get_first 1663 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_rt_cache_get_next 1674 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_rt_cache_get_next 1677 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/decnet/dn_route.c dn_rt_cache_seq_stop 1704 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/fib_trie.c free_leaf 339 call_rcu_bh(&l->rcu, __leaf_free_rcu);
net/ipv4/route.c rt_cache_get_first 289 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c rt_cache_get_first 297 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c __rt_cache_get_next 309 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c __rt_cache_get_next 314 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c rt_cache_seq_stop 367 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c rt_free 613 call_rcu_bh(&rt->u.dst.rcu_head, dst_rcu_free);
net/ipv4/route.c rt_drop 619 call_rcu_bh(&rt->u.dst.rcu_head, dst_rcu_free);
net/ipv4/route.c __ip_route_output_key 2665 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c __ip_route_output_key 2679 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c __ip_route_output_key 2685 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c ip_rt_dump 2983 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c ip_rt_dump 2995 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv4/route.c ip_rt_dump 3000 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_add_addr 603 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_add_addr 682 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_regen_rndid 1641 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_regen_rndid 1665 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_ifa_notify 3967 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/ipv6/addrconf.c ipv6_ifa_notify 3970 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/mac80211/wme.c ieee80211_requeue 256 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/mac80211/wme.c ieee80211_requeue 294 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_tuple_taken 408 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_tuple_taken 413 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_tuple_taken 418 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
net/packet/af_packet.c run_filter 459 rcu_read_lock_bh();
net/packet/af_packet.c run_filter 463 rcu_read_unlock_bh();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-17 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 254+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-10 9:15 iptables very slow after commit784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Jeff Chua
2009-04-10 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 1:07 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-11 1:25 ` David Miller
2009-04-11 1:39 ` iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 4:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11 5:14 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-11 5:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11 6:00 ` David Miller
2009-04-11 18:12 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-11 18:12 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-11 18:32 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2009-04-11 18:32 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2009-04-12 0:54 ` david
2009-04-12 5:05 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-12 5:05 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-12 12:30 ` Harald Welte
2009-04-12 16:38 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-11 15:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 16:05 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-11 16:05 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-11 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 7:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-11 15:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 17:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-12 10:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-12 11:34 ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-12 17:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-13 1:13 ` David Miller
2009-04-13 4:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-13 16:53 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 17:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-13 17:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-13 18:11 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 19:06 ` Martin Josefsson
2009-04-13 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-13 22:24 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-13 23:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 23:26 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-13 23:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-13 23:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-14 12:27 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-14 14:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 14:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 15:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 15:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 16:51 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-14 18:17 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v2) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 19:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 21:11 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 21:13 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 21:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 21:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-15 10:59 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-15 10:59 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-15 16:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 16:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 20:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 21:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-15 21:55 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-16 12:12 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 12:24 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-16 12:24 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-16 12:31 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 12:31 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-15 21:57 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu rwlock rather than RCU (v4) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 23:48 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) David Miller
2009-04-16 0:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16 0:05 ` David Miller
2009-04-16 12:28 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 0:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 0:45 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16 5:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 13:53 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 13:53 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 14:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 14:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 16:10 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6) Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 16:59 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 17:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 17:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 18:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 20:49 ` [PATCH[] netfilter: use per-cpu reader-writer lock (v0.7) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16 21:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 23:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 0:13 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 0:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 13:11 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 22:33 ` David Miller
2009-04-16 23:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 23:52 ` [PATCH] netfilter: per-cpu spin-lock with recursion (v0.8) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-17 0:15 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-17 5:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 6:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 6:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 6:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 17:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 11:17 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-17 11:17 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-17 1:28 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 2:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-17 5:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 5:44 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-17 14:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 4:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-17 5:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 5:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 5:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 5:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 5:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 8:07 ` David Miller
2009-04-17 15:00 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-04-17 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-17 6:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 16:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 21:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-18 9:40 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-18 14:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 17:34 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 18:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 18:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-20 18:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-20 20:32 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 20:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 21:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 21:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 21:23 ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-20 21:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 22:41 ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-20 23:01 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 3:41 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 3:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 4:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 5:22 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 5:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 5:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 6:52 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 8:16 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-21 8:42 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 8:49 ` David Miller
2009-04-21 8:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 9:22 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-21 9:34 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 9:34 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 5:34 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 5:34 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 4:59 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 4:59 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 16:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-21 5:46 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 16:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-21 16:43 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 16:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-21 18:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 18:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 19:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 19:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 19:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 8:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 10:13 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 11:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 11:39 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 11:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 16:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 17:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 20:46 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 17:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 21:04 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-22 8:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 19:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 21:39 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-22 4:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-22 14:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-24 4:09 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV} Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-24 4:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-24 15:33 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-24 15:33 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-24 16:18 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-24 16:18 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-24 20:43 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-25 20:30 ` [PATCH] netfilter: iptables no lockdep is needed Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-26 8:18 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-26 18:24 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV} Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 18:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-26 21:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-26 22:32 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-27 17:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-27 18:30 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive " Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 18:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-27 19:06 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 19:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 19:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 20:36 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-27 20:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 21:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 21:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28 6:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 6:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 11:53 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 12:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-28 13:43 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 13:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-28 14:37 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 14:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-28 15:00 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 16:24 ` [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-28 16:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-29 5:37 ` David Miller
[not found] ` <20090428.223708.168741998.davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>
2009-04-30 3:26 ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-30 3:26 ` Jeff Chua
[not found] ` <b6a2187b0904292026k7d6107a7vcdc761d4149f40aa-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2009-04-30 3:31 ` David Miller
2009-04-30 3:31 ` David Miller
2009-05-01 8:38 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use likely() in xt_info_rdlock_bh() Eric Dumazet
2009-05-01 16:10 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 15:42 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV} Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 17:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 15:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-28 14:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 7:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-26 19:31 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive " Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-26 20:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 20:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 21:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-21 18:34 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-21 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-20 23:44 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 0:02 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 6:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 14:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-15 3:23 ` David Miller
2009-04-14 17:19 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 15:50 ` iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-12 0:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-12 7:23 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-12 16:06 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-12 17:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090417150047.GB6742@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=r000n@r000n.net \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.