On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:22 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-) > an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu() > must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ... Right. But I'm thinking that since all list manipulations are done under RTNL we only need to protect against removing things from the list while the RX or TX path is using it, so only it would have to use it under rcu_read_lock() [which it already takes due to key management] so we could get rid of that sub_if_lock completely. There is one issue with this I know about and that is the management skb queue but I'll have to take a closer look. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
