On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:02:44PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote: [..] > > > When my 'ifup eth' script was fired multiple times and ran concurrent o> @@ > > -682,7 +689,11 @@ restart: > > * we might sleep in __netpoll_cleanup() > > */ > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&target_list_lock, > > flags); > > + > > + mutex_lock(&nt->mutex); > > __netpoll_cleanup(&nt->np); > > + mutex_unlock(&nt->mutex); > > + > NAK, you can't hold a mutex while calling __netpoll_cleanup. > __netpoll_cleanup > may sleep and its illegal to hold a mutex while doing so. > Neil >
To my understanding, it mostly depends on locking order, and having sleeplocks in the outer order and spinlocks in the inner order is valid as long the locking order is not reversed. Also, drivers/net/team/team.c - another netpoll user, already does the same thing I intended in this patch - it locks the outer team->lock mutex in team_uninit() while calling team_port_del() and then team_port_disable_netpoll() calls __netpoll_cleanup(). -- 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/
