On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > This version of x_tables (ip/ip6/arp) locking uses a per-cpu > recursive lock that can be nested. Ack on the code. But the comment is _still_ crap. Please update. It's not a recursive lock, as clearly shown by the code itself. It's a per-cpu read-write lock, and only the reader is "recursive" (but that's how read-write locks with in Linux, and that has nothing to do with anything). So make the explanations match the code and the intent. Write it something like This version of x_tables (ip/ip6/arp) locking uses a per-cpu reader-writer lock lock where the readers can nest. and don't confuse it with incorrect commit messages. The lock is very much not recursive - on purpose - for half the people taking it. [ That, btw, was always true, even in the original random open-coded version. Because you can't actually do a real recursive lock without having notion of "current ownership" either by making the count be <per-thread,per-lock> - like the BKL - or by saving the ownership information in the lock. A plain counter simply doesn't do it. ] Linus -- 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
