Lai Jiangshan a écrit :
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * xt_table_info_rdlock_bh - recursive read lock for xt table info
>> + *
>> + * Table processing calls this to hold off any changes to table
>> + * (on current CPU). Always leaves with bottom half disabled.
>> + * If called recursively, then assumes bh/preempt already disabled.
>> + */
>> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
>> +{
>> + struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>> + if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
>
> Maybe I missed something. I think softirq may be still enabled here.
> So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?
well, first time its called, you are right softirqs are enabled until
the point we call spin_lock_bh(), right after this line :
>
>> + spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
>> + preempt_enable_no_resched();
After this line, both softirqs and preempt are disabled.
Future calls to this function temporarly raise preemptcount and decrease it.
(Null effect)
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
>> +
>
> Is this OK for you:
>
> void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> {
> struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>
> local_bh_disable();
well, Stephen was trying to not change preempt count for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th?... invocation of this function.
This is how I understood the code.
> lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> spin_lock(&lock->lock);
> }
>
> Lai.
>
Thanks for reviewing Lai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
