Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UDPCP Communication Protocol | From | Stefani Seibold <> | Date | Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:29:13 +0100 |
| |
Am Freitag, den 31.12.2010, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Eric Dumazet: > Le vendredi 31 décembre 2010 à 10:29 +0100, stefani@seibold.net a > écrit : > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&spinlock, flags); > > + udpcp_stat.txMsgs++; > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&spinlock, flags); > > This is really ugly for different reasons : > > 1) Naming a lock, even static "spinlock" is ugly.
Agree...
> 2) Using a lock for stats is not necessary, and > disabling hard irqs is not necessary either (spinlock_bh() would be > more than enough) > > At a very minimum, you should use atomic_t so that no lock is needed > > 3) Network stack widely use MIB per_cpu counters. > As you use UDP, you could take a look at UDP_INC_STATS_BH()/ > UDP_INC_STATS_USER() implementation for an example. >
I will have look at this and revamp it.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |