[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2D197D.4060804@trash.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:00:29 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
urs.thuermann@...kswagen.de, oliver.hartkopp@...kswagen.de,
wg@...ndegger.com, vladislav.yasevich@...com, sri@...ibm.com,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] We must use rcu_barrier() on module unload
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> If an unloadable module uses RCU callbacks, it need to use
> rcu_barrier() so that the module may be safely unloaded.
>
> While hacking on a netfilter module of my own, I learned the
> importance of calling rcu_barrier() instead of only a
> synchronize_rcu() on module unload (iif using any call_rcu()
> callbacks). synchronize_rcu() does wait for a grace period to
> elapse, but it does not wait for the callbacks to complete.
>
> ...
> I have made a patch for each individual module, so objections can be
> made on a per module basis. I have Cc'ed all of the patches to the
> maintainers of each module (according to the MAINTAINERS file).
Acked-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> for patches 1 and 2, good
catch.
--
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