From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: introduce a list of device addresses
	dev_addr_list
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:28:14 +0200
Message-ID: <20090415112813.GH21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
References: <20090313183303.GF3436@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090415081720.GA21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090415081819.GB21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49E59A1C.9030108@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090415083223.GF21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49E5A896.90408@cosmosbay.com> <20090415111724.GG21342@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49E5C378.9020209@trash.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	shemminger@linux-foundation.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	fubar@us.ibm.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	mschmidt@redhat.com, ivecera@redhat.com
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48140 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753931AbZDOLau (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:30:50 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49E5C378.9020209@trash.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:22:32PM CEST, kaber@trash.net wrote:
> Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>>> Since you obviously need a write lock here to be sure following
>>> can be done by one cpu only.
>>>
>>> You have same problem all over this patch.
>>
>> Yes, as Dave wrote, this is guarded by RTNL mutex.
>
> This was incorrect. IPv6 adds multicast addresses in softirq context.

Yes, I see that.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +	ha = kzalloc(sizeof(*ha), GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> kzalloc(max(sizeof(*ha), L1_CACHE_SIZE), GFP_...) is thus higly recommended here.
>>>
>>> Also, why GFP_ATOMIC is needed here ?
>>
>> Yes, it is not needed here. I've copied it here from the original unicast and
>> multicast add funtion to stay close but as I can see, there is no need for it
>> there either.
>> Noted.
>
> Also needed for IPv6 in softirq context.
>

Noted...