[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070319151336.GA24225@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:13:36 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@....mellanox.co.il>
To: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@....mellanox.co.il>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
> Quoting Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>:
> Subject: Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
>
> Hello!
>
> > infiniband sets parm->neigh_destructor, and I search for a way to prevent
> > this destructor from being called after the module has been unloaded.
> > Ideas?
>
> It must be called in any case to update/release internal ipoib structures.
I don't think there's a problem.
All we do in destructor is release the ipoib_neigh resource.
And on device unregister we release all resources anyway.
> The idea is to move call of parm->neigh_destructor from neighbour destructor
> to the moment when it is unhashed, right after n->dead is set.
>
> infiniband is the only user (atm clip uses it too, but that use is obviously
> dummy), so that nobody will be harmed.
This might work. Could you post a patch to better show what you mean to do?
> But ipoib will have to check for validity of skb->dst->neighbour before
> attempt to reinitialize private data on dead (n->dead != 0) neighbour.
We set a flag before unregister_netdev and test it in start_xmit so
that's covered I think.
--
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists