[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364564339.5113.19.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:38:59 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Guy Streeter <streeter@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: add a synchronize_net() in
netdev_rx_handler_unregister()
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 09:17 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I've thought about this too, but I wasn't sure we wanted two
> synchronize_*() functions, as the caller does a synchronize as well.
> That said, I think this is the more robust solution and it lets all
> rx_handler() functions assume that their rx_handler_data is set. And it
> removes the check from the fast path which outweighs an added
> synchronization in the slow path.
>
Note that I used synchronize_net(), which does a
synchronize_rcu_expedited() when RTNL is locked, so its normally quite
fast.
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> Thanks!
Thanks a lot for your very detailed report and analysis !
--
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