Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:27:27 +0200 | From | Bernard Pidoux <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] soft lockup rose_node_list_lock |
| |
Hi David,
I also spent a lot of time to understand how rose behaved and I agree that it is difficult to decifer a code especially dealing with socket programming and when it was written by someone else. But as a radioamateur, Linux is a hobby for me and I like to learn.
Actually, rose_get_neigh() is called when two different events are occuring :
- first, it is called by rose_connect() in order to find if an adjacent node is ready to route to a specific ROSE address. - second, rose_route_frame() calls rose_get_neigh() every time an incoming frame must be routed to an appropriate AX25 connection.
By the way, rose_get_neigh() function is not optimized for it does not check if an adjacent node is already connected before a new connect is requested. For this purpose I have derived a new function, I named rose_get_route(), that is called by rose_route_frame() to find a route via an adjacent node. This function has been tested for months now and it works fine. It adds the automatic frames routing that rose needed desperately. I will send next a patch with this new rose_get_route().
Bernard Pidoux
p.s. my email client is set for MIME attachements, but it seems corrupted. I will fix that. Sorry for the unvoluntary increase of workload it gave you.
David Miller a écrit : > From: Bernard Pidoux <pidoux@ccr.jussieu.fr> > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:09:23 +0200 > > >> Since rose_route_frame() does not use rose_node_list we can safely >> remove rose_node_list_lock spin lock here and let it be free for >> rose_get_neigh(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux <f6bvp@amsat.org> >> > > Indeed, I went over this code several times and I can't > see any reason for rose_route_frame() to take the node > list lock. > > Patch applied, thanks Bernard. But one thing... > > >> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c >> index fb9359f..5053a53 100644 >> --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c >> +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c >> @@ -857,7 +857,6 @@ int rose_route_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, ax25_cb *ax25) >> src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + 9); >> dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + 4); >> >> - spin_lock_bh(&rose_node_list_lock); >> spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock); >> spin_lock_bh(&rose_route_list_lock); >> >> > > Could you please fix your email client so it doesn't corrupt > patches like this? I've had to apply all of your patches by > hand because the tabs have been converted into spaces. Use > MIME attachments if you have to. > > Thanks again. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |