[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <069bdb52-6176-407a-b7fc-3f23a944a529@CMEXHTCAS2.ad.emulex.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:57:41 +0000
From: Sathya Perla <Sathya.Perla@...lex.Com>
To: "Li, ZhenHua" <zhen-hual@...com>
CC: Subramanian Seetharaman <subbu.seetharaman@...lex.com>,
Ajit Khaparde <Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] driver/net: add missing rtnl lock/unlock for benet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Li, ZhenHua [mailto:zhen-hual@...com]
>
> Because netif_running() is called in netif_device_detach and
> netif_device_attach. To avoid dev status changed while
> netif_device_detach/attach is not finished, I think a rtnl_lock and
> unlock should be called to avoid this.
Ok. I'd like to then factor the code slightly differently by using
routines like this:
be_close_sync() {
rtnl_lock();
netif_device_detach(netdev);
if (netif_running(netdev))
be_close(netdev);
rtnl_unlock();
}
and similarly for be_open_sync()
And, I'd need some time to test these flows too.
Would you be OK with this?
thanks,
-Sathya
--
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