On 03/11/2016 05:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:28:53PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> for_each_possible_cpu() with a cpu_online() + `thread' check possibly does >> the job. But there is a tiny race: Say CPU5 is reported online but is >> going down. And after fcoe_percpu_clean() saw that CPU5 is online it >> decided to enqueue a packet. After dev_alloc_skb() returned a skb >> that CPU is offline (or say the notifier destroyed the kthread). So we >> would OOps because `thread' is NULL. >> An alternative would be to lock the CPUs during our loop (so no CPU is >> going away) and then we iterate over the online mask. > > I've looked over this and the following patches, and I suspect > the right thing to do for fcoe and bnx2 is to convert them to use the > generic workqueue code instead of reinventing it poorly.
alloc_workqueue() in setup and then queue_work_on(cpu, , item)? item should be struct work_struct but all I have is a skb. Is there an easy way to get this attached? Sebastian _______________________________________________ fcoe-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/fcoe-devel
