On 2/13/24 09:37, Adrian Moreno wrote: > > > On 2/13/24 09:32, Adrian Moreno wrote: >> >> >> On 2/9/24 17:17, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> For some reason annotation is made for a read-lock, while all the >>> callers are correctly holding a write-lock. >>> >>> Fixes: 05df16238d43 ("ofproto/bond: Fix bond post recirc rule leak.") >>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> >>> --- >>> ofproto/bond.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/ofproto/bond.c b/ofproto/bond.c >>> index cfdf44f85..c4b3a4a45 100644 >>> --- a/ofproto/bond.c >>> +++ b/ofproto/bond.c >>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ update_recirc_rules__(struct bond *bond) >>> static void >>> update_recirc_rules(struct bond *bond) >>> - OVS_REQ_RDLOCK(rwlock) >>> + OVS_REQ_WRLOCK(rwlock) >>> { >>> update_recirc_rules__(bond); >>> } >> >> Looks good to me. >> >> Acked-by: Adrian Moreno <amore...@redhat.com> > > Sorry, thought of something after sending the ack. > > If, as we're discussing in [1], we lock the global mutex in bond_unref(), > there > should not be any reason to keep the lock-less version of this function > (update_recirc_rules__()) so we could fold both functions together. > > Unless you see a reason not to backport [1] to the same degree as this patch, > I > could merge this patch with my v2 of [1]. > > WDYT?
Yeah, sure. If you can just incorporate that change into your patch and get rid of the lock-less function entirely, that will be better. Thanks! Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > [1] > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/20240209070642.2412417-1-amore...@redhat.com/ > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev