[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1249C41B-D72F-40C8-A8F1-D135D02A1511@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:59:56 +0000
From: "Li, Zhen-Hua" <zhen-hual@...com>
To: Sathya Perla <Sathya.Perla@...lex.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
Yes, that's ok for me.
发自我的 iPhone
在 2014年4月15日,下午7:57,"Sathya Perla" <Sathya.Perla@...lex.Com> 写道:
>> -----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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists