David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right, I don't know whether it'll fix the problem Ben saw > or not, but it looks like the original code can do a receive before the > in_device is fully initialized, and that, of course, is bad. > If the device for ip_rcv() is not the same one we were > initializing when the receive interrupted, then the patch should have > no effect either way -- I don't think it'll hide other problems. > If it's hard to reproduce (which I guess is true), then you're > right, no soft lockup doesn't really tell us if it's fixed or not.
Actually I missed your point that the multicast locks aren't even initialised at that point. So this does explain the soft lock-up and therefore your patch is clearly the correct solution. Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
