On Thursday 10 February 2011 13:45:44 Linus Lüssing wrote:
goto found;
goto out;}
Hmm, we could do a rcu_read_unlock() here, already, I think. Would it be better to do so, keeping the rcu grace period as small as possible?
Can you be more specific where "here" is ? Instead of the "goto out" ?
The rest of the new atomic handling seems fine. Just two more things I noticed while reading the softif_neigh specific code: bat_priv->softif_neigh needs to be changed to a rcu-protected pointer.
Agreed.
There's a race condition in softif_neigh_seq_print_text(), between the rcu_read_unlock() and rcu_read_lock() the number of softif_neigh's can have increased and there's no check for accidentally writing outside of the allocated buffer.
Also correct - are you going to send a patch ?
Regards, Marek