RE: [RFC PATCH] net/tipc: reduce tipc_node lock holding time in tipc_rcv

[Tung Quang Nguyen]

>Why can't use le->lock instead of node's lock to protect it in tipc_link_rcv.
>
I have already explained:
__tipc_node_link_down()
{
    ...
   if (!l || tipc_link_is_reset(l)) <-- read link status
    ...
}
>>What I showed you were just 2 use cases (link reset/delete). There are more use cases (netlink, transmit path etc) that need proper
>locks.
>
>The same. We can also add spin_lock_bh(&le->lock) to protect the link in other places where it changes the link status in addition to
>'reset/delete'. Because using node lock to protect the link in tipc_link_rcv is really wasting CPU performance.
>
If you want to change current lock policy, you need to submit a complete/correct patch. I will acknowledge this patch if I can see a significant improvement in my test.