On 2/25/19 11:31 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 02/25/2019 03:21 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Well, sure - but it seems confusing that rtnl_unregister() will require
>> synchronize_rcu(), while rtnl_unregister_all() will not.
>
> rtnl_unregister_all() is a different beast, since it removes the
On 02/25/2019 03:21 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2/25/19 11:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> While it's possible to document that rtnl_unregister() requires
>>> synchronize_net() afterwards - unlike rtnl_unregister_all(), I believe
On 2/25/19 11:21 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2/25/19 11:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> While it's possible to document that rtnl_unregister() requires
>>> synchronize_net() afterwards - unlike rtnl_unregister_all(), I believe
>>>
Hi Eric,
On 2/25/19 11:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> While it's possible to document that rtnl_unregister() requires
>> synchronize_net() afterwards - unlike rtnl_unregister_all(), I believe
>> the module exit is very much slow-path.
>
>
On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> rtnl_unregister() unsets handler from table, which is protected
> by rtnl_lock or RCU. At this moment only dump handlers access the table
> with rcu_lock(). Every other user accesses under rtnl.
>
> Callers may expect that rtnl_unregister()
rtnl_unregister() unsets handler from table, which is protected
by rtnl_lock or RCU. At this moment only dump handlers access the table
with rcu_lock(). Every other user accesses under rtnl.
Callers may expect that rtnl_unregister() prevents any further handlers
calls, alike
6 matches
Mail list logo