From: Cong Wang
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:57:46 -0700
> Passing 'exists' as 'atomic' is prior to my change. With my change,
> they are separated as two parameters:
I mis-read the patch, thanks for explaining :)
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM David Miller wrote:
>
> From: Cong Wang
> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:22:12 -0700
>
> > The only time we need to take tcfa_lock is when adding
> > a new metainfo to an existing ife->metalist. We don't need
> > to take tcfa_lock so early and so broadly in tcf_ife_ini
From: Cong Wang
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:22:12 -0700
> The only time we need to take tcfa_lock is when adding
> a new metainfo to an existing ife->metalist. We don't need
> to take tcfa_lock so early and so broadly in tcf_ife_init().
>
> This means we can always take ife_mod_lock first, avoid t
The only time we need to take tcfa_lock is when adding
a new metainfo to an existing ife->metalist. We don't need
to take tcfa_lock so early and so broadly in tcf_ife_init().
This means we can always take ife_mod_lock first, avoid the
reverse locking ordering warning as reported by Vlad.
Reported
