From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitchell Blank Jr Subject: Re: [PATCH] tiny af_packet.c cleanup Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:26:28 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030914112628.GD42531@gaz.sfgoth.com> References: <20030913055033.GB94744@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20030913093559.A23840@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20030913080252.GE94744@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20030913110353.B23840@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20030913201559.GI94744@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20030914125549.A7790@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Francois Romieu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030914125549.A7790@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Francois Romieu wrote: > See previously posted patch. Imho the non-trivial part isn't the locking > itself but the fact that the first test of sk->sk_filter is done _without_ > lock. OK, that was what I thought was going on. I figured the short comment (along with the likely()) would explain this adequately (i.e. "we're now re-checking under lock so we get the authorative answer") but maybe it needs more explaination. -Mitch