[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1358396284.3855.16.camel@cr0>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:18:04 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v4] netpoll: fix a rtnl lock assertion failure
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 22:54 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:30:18 +0800
>
> > On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 17:24 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:34 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> > if (np->dev_name)
> >> > - ndev = dev_get_by_name(&init_net, np->dev_name);
> >> > + ndev = __dev_get_by_name(&init_net, np->dev_name);
> >>
> >> This change brings interesting bugs.
> >
> > Hmm, I didn't realize __dev_get_by_name() doesn't hold the device, so
> > just call dev_hold() after this?
>
> Why not just... call dev_get_by_name()? It doesn't hurt to over-RCU
> lock.
>
Just that taking RCU read lock while having rtnl lock is unnecessary, no
other reason.
--
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