Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:18:19 +0100
> James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com> wrote:
> 
>> +struct l2tp_eth_net {
>> +	struct list_head l2tp_eth_dev_list;
>> +	rwlock_t l2tp_eth_lock;
>> +};
> 
> Reader/write locks are discouraged because they are slower than
> spin locks.  If you have lots of readers use RCU, if reading
> is infrequent just use a spin lock.

Ok. In doing the conversion of the rwlocks in l2tp_core.c, I'm finding
that some list access primitives don't have rcu equivalents, namely
list_is_last(), list_for_each_entry_safe(). Is this intentional? Should
I add the missing ones in a separate patch?


-- 
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html