-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Robert Olsson [IPV4]: Do not disable preemption in trie_leaf_remove(). Hello, Just discussed this Patrick... We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff. This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take. > Mhh .. I think I just remembered something - me incorrectly suggesting > to add it there while we were talking about this at OLS :) IIRC the > idea was to make sure tnode_free (which at that time didn't use > call_rcu) wouldn't free memory while still in use in a rcu read-side > critical section. It should have been synchronize_rcu of course, > but with tnode_free using call_rcu it seems to be completely > unnecessary. So I guess we can simply remove it. Signed-off-by: Robert Olsson Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- net/ipv4/fib_trie.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) --- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c @@ -1528,7 +1528,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie t->revision++; t->size--; - preempt_disable(); tp = NODE_PARENT(n); tnode_free((struct tnode *) n); @@ -1538,7 +1537,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, trie_rebalance(t, tp)); } else rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, NULL); - preempt_enable(); return 1; } -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/