Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 01:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 16:24 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> > > So it looks like I can also use rcu_read_lock(), but there's no >> > > for_each_net_rcu(), should there be? >> > >> > I'm not using rcu safe list manipulation. What makes it look like >> > rcu_read_lock() is safe? >> >> Indeed. I was looking at rcu_barrier() only. How about the patch below? > > With that, my genl patch can look like this: > > Subject: genetlink: make netns aware > > This makes generic netlink network namespace aware. > No actual generic netlink families are made namespace > aware, they need to be checked one by one and then > set the family->netnsok member to true. Are skb_clone and nlmsg_multicast really guaranteed not to sleep? That seems like a lot of code and a lot of code paths. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
