Re: [patch] 2.3.8+ UP masq
Juanjo Ciarlante (irriga@impsat1.com.ar)
Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:33:28 -0300
On Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 08:42:07AM -0400, Matthew Harrell wrote:
> : > This patch gets rid of numerous undefined lock problems. Since the locks have
> : > now been surrounded in ifdef SMP declarations it made sense to do the same with
> : > all the locks that were used in the code.
> :
> : Wouldn't it be easier just to remove the #ifdef / #endif from around the lock
> : declaration in the first place? On UP, they won't take up an space and the
> : spin_lock() calls are optimized away. It would make the code a lot tidier.
>
> Oh, I don't deny that but it got recently introduced in 2.3.8 and I figured
> there had to be a reason for it. It was pretty late at night when I did this so
> never asked if there was a reasoning behind it - why were they suddenly put in?
The change that triggered these probs is that
spin_lock_irq(&lock) on UP mapped
previously --> cli();
now --> local_irq_disable();spin_lock(&lock);
+--> (void)(&lock);
ie. "lock" must exist.
To cope with this "existance" requirement, just remove the #ifdef's around
masq_port_lock.
And YES, in UP that cli() (or equiv.) MUST exist (masq_port variable IS
changed from U-space [ip_masq_user module] and obviously from kernel [bh]).
Regards
--
-- Juanjo http://juanjox.kernelnotes.org/
... because there IS an OS that CAN follow your power
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/