[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17914.36807.643615.571195@robur.slu.se>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:38:31 +0100
From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, kaber@...sh.net,
tgr@...g.ch, Jens.Laas@...a.slu.se, hans.liss@....uu.se
Subject: [PATCH] fib_hash removal
Hello, Just discussed this Patrick...
We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take.
> Mhh .. I think I just remembered something - me incorrectly suggesting
> to add it there while we were talking about this at OLS :) IIRC the
> idea was to make sure tnode_free (which at that time didn't use
> call_rcu) wouldn't free memory while still in use in a rcu read-side
> critical section. It should have been synchronize_rcu of course,
> but with tnode_free using call_rcu it seems to be completely
> unnecessary. So I guess we can simply remove it.
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Signed-off-by: Robert Olsson <robert.olsson@....uu.se>
Cheers.
--ro
diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
@@ -1534,7 +1534,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie
t->revision++;
t->size--;
- preempt_disable();
tp = NODE_PARENT(n);
tnode_free((struct tnode *) n);
@@ -1544,7 +1543,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie
rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, trie_rebalance(t, tp));
} else
rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, NULL);
- preempt_enable();
return 1;
}
-
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