David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> > Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:40:06 +0100 > >> Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 14:42 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>>> RCU_INIT_POINTER() is not suitable here as it doesn't give us ordering >>>> guarantees (see the comment in rcupdate.h). This is also not a hotpath. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c >>>> index bfc79698b8f4..12efb3e34775 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c >>>> @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ void netvsc_device_remove(struct hv_device *device) >>>> >>>> netvsc_revoke_buf(device, net_device); >>>> >>>> - RCU_INIT_POINTER(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); >>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); >>> >>> I see no point for this patch. >>> >>> Setting a NULL pointer needs no barrier at all. >> >> Oh, sorry, I got confused by the comment near RCU_INIT_POINTER() in >> rcupdate.h. Now looking at their definitions I see. >> >> This patch can of course be dropped from the series. > > Any time there is a change to the series, you must resubmit the entire > series. >
Sure, will do. Just wanted to give it a couple of days to see if Microsoft guys or someone else have any comments. Thanks, -- Vitaly
