Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:40 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit : > > David Miller wrote: > > > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 07:43:56 +0200 > > > > > >> Le lundi 03 mai 2010 à 07:41 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Oops scratch that, I'll resend a correct version. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Sorry, patch _is_ fine, I had one brain collapse when re-reading it, I > > >> thought a different mutex was in use in one of the functions. > > > > > > Ok, Patrick please review, thanks. > > > > Actually we don't need the rcu_dereference() calls at all since > > registration and unregistration are protected by the mutexes. > > > > I queued this patch in nf-next, the only reason why I haven't > > submitted it yet is that I was unable to get git to cleanly export > > only the proper set of patches meant for -next due to a few merges, > > it insists on including 5 patches already merged upstream. If you > > don't mind ignoring the first 5 patches in the series, I'll send a > > pull request tonight. > > > > > This will clash with upcoming RCU patches, where rcu protected pointer > cannot be directly accessed without lockdep splats. > Sorry, I meant sparse here, not lockdep. > We will need one day or another a rcu_...(nf_conntrack_event_cb) -- 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
