On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:25:52 +
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 10:47, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>
> > Ah, of course. Thanks for clarifying. By the way, what tricked me here
> > was this check in fl_change():
> >
> > if (fold && handle && fold->handle != handle)
> > ...
On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 10:47, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:38:04 +
> Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
>> On Thu 14 Feb 2019 at 20:34, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:47:02 +0200
>> > Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >
>> >> As a preparation for using classifier spinlock instea
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:38:04 +
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 14 Feb 2019 at 20:34, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:47:02 +0200
> > Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >
> >> As a preparation for using classifier spinlock instead of relying on
> >> external rtnl lock, rearrange code in fl_
On Thu 14 Feb 2019 at 20:34, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:47:02 +0200
> Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
>> As a preparation for using classifier spinlock instead of relying on
>> external rtnl lock, rearrange code in fl_change. The goal is to group the
>> code which changes classifier stat
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:47:02 +0200
Vlad Buslov wrote:
> As a preparation for using classifier spinlock instead of relying on
> external rtnl lock, rearrange code in fl_change. The goal is to group the
> code which changes classifier state in single block in order to allow
> following commits in t
As a preparation for using classifier spinlock instead of relying on
external rtnl lock, rearrange code in fl_change. The goal is to group the
code which changes classifier state in single block in order to allow
following commits in this set to protect it from parallel modification with
tp->lock.
