From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 04:59:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20180718115919.GB4949@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180718165406.6f262266@canb.auug.org.au> <20180718092426.mxdti3jes5jsssta@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Rothwell , NetFilter , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Varsha Rao To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180718092426.mxdti3jes5jsssta@salvia> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > I see, we have no more lockless API for IDA anymore :-(. In our case, > we were already protected by the the nfnl_lock mutex, which it was > sufficient to ensure non-concurrent access to IDA structures. You're actually the first user for whom this is true. For every other user, the requirement to manage their own spinlock was a pain. > Unless I'm missing anything, the new API forces use to the spinlock > call with disabled irq for each time we update something from the > netfilter netlink interface, so that's a no-go for us. I can't believe that's a serious problem for you, though. You're calling sscanf(), this can't possibly be a performance path.