Re: [PATCH] (0/8) replace brlock with RCU

[David S. Miller]

   From: Linus Torvalds <[e-mail]>
   Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:23:24 -0800 (PST)
   
   On 11 Mar 2003, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
   > 
   > The following sequence of patches replaces the remaining use of brlock
   > with RCU.  Most of this is fairly straightforward. The unregister functions
   > use synchronize_kernel(), perhaps there should be a special version to
   > indicate sychronizing with network BH. 
   >
   > Comments?
   
   I'm not going to take this directly, but if it passes muster with David, 
   I'm happy.  The fewer locking primitives we need, the better, and brlocks 
   have had enough problems that I wouldn't mind getting rid of them.

I'm fine with it, as long as I get shown how to get the equivalent
atomic sequence using the new primitives.  Ie. is there still a way
to go:

	stop_all_incoming_packets();
	do_something();
	resume_all_incoming_packets();

with the new stuff?