From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:25:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20180718132552.oxy5gmwwyysoa7xr@salvia> References: <20180718165406.6f262266@canb.auug.org.au> <20180718092426.mxdti3jes5jsssta@salvia> <20180718115919.GB4949@bombadil.infradead.org> 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: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180718115919.GB4949@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:59:19AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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. It's not about performance, this is control plane code. This is disabling irqs, which is something we don't need.