Opinion please

[Timothy R. Chavez]

On Monday 16 May 2005 11:21, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Serge pointed out something to me on an internal list here and I wanted to
> poll for opinions.  Which would you prefer?  I think adding another
> parameter to audit_send_reply to specify GFP_ATOMIC/KERNEL would be
> simplest.  But is it wise to do so?
>
> Here's what he had to say:
>
> Hey Tim,
>
> it looks like w_master is now adequately protected by the spinlock.
>
> But I'm not sure whether netlink_unicast is a problem (sure looks like
> it - it puts current on a waitqueue for one thing) or what you should do
> about it.  You might just need to build a list of things to send under
> the rcu_read_lock(), then send each element once you rcu_read_unlock().

Ok, I took this advice, and just went ahead and implemented something very 
similar.  Good idea Serge.  Thanks.  I'm going to do some more extensive 
testing here before I release a patch since people are apparently having 
problems with the code (plus I'm going to patch up to rc4-mm2).

-tim