Re: [patch] 2.3.8+ UP masq

Matthew Harrell (mharrell@sito.saic.com)
Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:43:50 -0400

: Hang on a minute. If those were just spin_lock then OK, ignore for
: SMP. But they are spin_lock_irq which implies the protected code is
: entered from irq as well as normal kernel. If so, then the locks are
: still needed, even on UP.
:
: I tried to trace the call tree down to get_next_mport. AFAICT, it goes
: get_next_mport <- ip_masq_new <- ip_masq_mod_out_create <-
: ip_fw_masquerade <- ip_forward. If any of those are called from an
: irq, then the lock is still required on UP. Otherwise it should be
: spin_lock().

Thanks. That's what I get for mechanically fixing the code late at night. I
guess the proper behariour would be to just remove the ifdef statements around
all of them including the lock variable.

-- 
  Matthew Harrell                            To err is human,
  Simulation Technology Division, SAIC        to purr feline.
  mharrell@sito.saic.com


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/