Hello,
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Better to revert the ip_masq_mod changes. We don't
> > have spin_*_bh in 2.2 and write_*_bh is defined in
> > include/net/ip_masq.h. May be we have to define spin_*_bh
> > there? Just for this change?
>
> masq_mod_lock is a spinlock_t. You cant use it as a write lock
>
Oh, yes. But the problem is not in the spinlock_t
type only. There are BH readers that don't use read locks. So, better
to use spin_*_irq locks for the ip_masq_mod_lkp_base
list.
But if the order of list operations in ip_masq_mod_lkp_unlink and
ip_masq_mod_lkp_link don't hurt the readers we can just change the
lock to rwlock_t.
Regards
-- Julian Anastasov <uli@linux.tu-varna.acad.bg>- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST