[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070213115529.6ea7e7bd@freekitty>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:55:29 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"bugme-daemon\@kernel-bugs\.osdl\.org"
<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>, pterjan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][NET][BRIDGE] br_if: oops in port_carrier_check
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:26:51 +0100
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:47:38AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:28:48 +0100
> > Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is my patch proposal for testing.
> > > If it doesn't work - forget about it.
> > > (Prepared with 2.6.20-git6 but could
> > > be applied to 2.6.20 also.)
> > >
> > > Jarek P.
> > >
> > >
> > > dev_hold/dev_put added to prevent dev kfree
> > > during port_carrier_check runnig, while dev
> > > and port are removed.
> >
> > No, holding the reference just stops the kfree, it doesn't
> > stop the device from being removed from the port.
>
> But I wrote above it is only to prevent the kfree.
>
> > p = dev->br_port;
> > if (!p)
> > goto done;
> > br = p->br;
>
> Then p is NULL here and we goto done.
>
> Sorry, but the first version was wrong (incomplete).
> Below I attach a new proposal.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Yes, this looks correct. If carrier_check is pending the ref count
gets cleared by cancel. If carrier work is waiting for rtnl, then
it cleans itself up.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists