Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:18:07 -0500 | From | Tom Leete <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ipv4 skbuff locking scope |
| |
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:24:24 -0500 > From: Tom Leete <tleete@mountain.net> > > This fixes tests of a socket buffer done without holding the > lock. tcp_data_wait() and wait_for_tcp_memory() both had > unguarded refs in their sleep conditionals. > > These are not buggy at all, see the discussion which took place here > over the past few days.
I'll post traces privately. It was my lockups that got Rick interested.
> Look, if the sleep condition test "races" due to not holding the lock, > the schedule() just returns because if the sleep condidion test passes > then by definition this means we were also woken up, see?
Would you explain what is accomplished by toggling the lock every time through? What breaks by not doing so?
> BTW, while we're on the topic of people not understanding the > networking locking and proposing bogus patches, does anyone know who > sent the bogon IP tunneling locking "fixes" to Linus behind my back?
Not me, but see below.
> They were crap too, and I had to revert them in test10-pre7. It's > another case of people just not understanding how the code works and > thus that it is correct without any changes.
If it's perfect why can't I use it without locking up the machine? BTW, I'm currently running my patch. I can now flood ping 100000 packets in either direction. With unmodified tcp that is a red switcher (reliably hard locks all i/o including the serial console).
> Please send such fixes to me, and I'll set you straight with a > description as to why your change is unnecessary :-)
Perhaps that's why somebody wants to bypass you.
Tom Leete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |