On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 09:17 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I've thought about this too, but I wasn't sure we wanted two > synchronize_*() functions, as the caller does a synchronize as well. > That said, I think this is the more robust solution and it lets all > rx_handler() functions assume that their rx_handler_data is set. And it > removes the check from the fast path which outweighs an added > synchronization in the slow path. >
Note that I used synchronize_net(), which does a synchronize_rcu_expedited() when RTNL is locked, so its normally quite fast. > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> > > Thanks! Thanks a lot for your very detailed report and analysis ! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
