On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 14:40 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> Here, and above I see you using an rcu_head to defer cleanup, until after all
> pointer uses are dropped, but I don't see any modification of code points that
> dereference any struct netpoll pointers to include
> rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlo
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:37:59PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> Like the previous patch, slave_disable_netpoll() and __netpoll_cleanup()
> may be called with read_lock() held too, so we should make them
> non-block, by moving the cleanup and kfree() to call_rcu_bh() callbacks.
>
> Cc: "David S. Mille
Like the previous patch, slave_disable_netpoll() and __netpoll_cleanup()
may be called with read_lock() held too, so we should make them
non-block, by moving the cleanup and kfree() to call_rcu_bh() callbacks.
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c |
3 matches
Mail list logo
