On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Julius Volz wrote: > >> Ok, fixed this up. The mutex is not completely moved down to make the > >> code look a bit nicer (nla_put_failure assumes locked mutex). There > >> should not be much concurrency anyways since this mutex only locks the > >> userspace interface, which is mainly used by ipvsadm. > > > > True, it was just a hint for an optimization. Looks good to me. > > > > Acked-by: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for the help with this! > > > Should we get this into 2.6.27? It's a new interface, currently unused, so > > the chance of breaking anything is marginal. > > Yeah, it shouldn't break anything existing and that would be great! Fine by me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
