From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events Date: 04 Apr 2005 18:20:17 -0400 Message-ID: <1112653217.1088.2.camel@jzny.localdomain> References: <1112406164.1088.54.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050402014619.GB24861@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112469601.1088.173.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1112538718.1096.394.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404005805.GA16543@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112614706.1096.439.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404121641.GA12103@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112619096.1088.473.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404130224.GA12546@gondor.apana.org.au> <1112620614.1088.489.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050404213149.GA15222@gondor.apana.org.au> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Masahide NAKAMURA , "David S. Miller" , netdev Return-path: To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050404213149.GA15222@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 17:31, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:16:55AM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > > Ok, fair enough. It annoys me too when i review patches ;-> > > So i will fix this before final. > > Just one more thing, can you please remove the _bh's that you > added to the read_lock for xfrm_km_list? It turns out that they're > not necessary since the write_lock()'s are only held in process > context. Doesnt the policy notification one need it at least ? I thought it is entered at interupt context on packet path, no? cheers, jamal