|
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Julius Volz wrote:
> >> Ok, fixed this up. The mutex is not completely moved down to make the
> >> code look a bit nicer (nla_put_failure assumes locked mutex). There
> >> should not be much concurrency anyways since this mutex only locks the
> >> userspace interface, which is mainly used by ipvsadm.
> >
> > True, it was just a hint for an optimization. Looks good to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for the help with this!
>
> > Should we get this into 2.6.27? It's a new interface, currently unused, so
> > the chance of breaking anything is marginal.
>
> Yeah, it shouldn't break anything existing and that would be great!
Fine by me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
