From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm:Use rcu_dereference_bh to deference pointer protected by rcu_read_lock_bh Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:58:46 +0200 Message-ID: <1345370326.5158.23.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1345184349-5849-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com> <20120816.232414.545877018277576779.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fan.du@windriver.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:53503 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751549Ab2HSJ6x (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:58:53 -0400 Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so4556614wgb.1 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:58:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120816.232414.545877018277576779.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 23:24 -0700, David Miller wrote: > I already applied your patch, as I told you here: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=134517122805719&w=2 > > This means you are submitting a patch which doesn't not even apply > to the net-next tree. > > Instead of continuing to dig yourself deeper and deeper, take a > break, take a deep breath, and work slowly and carefully. > -- BTW, we (incorrectly ?) mix RCU and RCU_BH in this file, and since we use synchronize_rcu() anyway, we should/could use rcu_read_lock() everywhere we can, as this is less expensive (currently inlined at least on x86) than rcu_read_lock_bh() I'll send a cleanup patch on a separate thread