[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100922231113.GR2435@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:11:13 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fw: rcu warning
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:47:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:44:38 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > In linux/master, there is an rcu_read_lock_bh() in the call path, but
> > an rcu_dereference() instead of an rcu_dereference_bh(). Thoughts?
> >
> > (I have asked Andrew what kernel this is against -- I don't see the
> > rcu_read_lock() that I would expect to see in the lockdep output.)
>
> current linux-next.
Thank you!!!
OK, here we have __in_dev_get_rtnl() called from ip_route_output_slow().
I might be missing something, but I don't see either an rcu_read_lock()
or an RTNL acquisition in ip_route_output_slow().
But the call to __in_dev_get_rtnl() simply compares to NULL, so I don't
understand why this can't instead call __in_dev_get_rcu(). Given that
there are a number of places where the return value from __in_dev_get_rtnl()
is compared to NULL, one approach would be to have something like the
following:
static inline int __in_dev_check_null(const struct net_device *dev)
{
return rcu_dereference_raw(dev->ip_ptr) == NULL;
}
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
--
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