[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529FC980.8020101@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:32:00 +0800
From: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
joe@...ches.com, vfalico@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: neighbour: add neighbour dead check for neigh_timer_handler()
On 12/04/2013 11:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 17:16 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> base->running_timer = neigh->timer;
>>>> neigh_timer_handler() => at this time, refcnt is 2;
>>>>
>>>> user-> neigh_changeaddr()
>>>> neigh_flush_dev();
>>>> neigh_del_imer, refcnt dec to 1;
>>>
>>> Nope : del_timer() would return 0 here, so we do not decrement refcnt.
>>>
>>
>> The first call for del_timer() will return 1, because the timer->entry.next is not NULL,
>> then in the neigh_destroy, the del_timer() again will return 0 because timer->entry.next is NULL.
>
> Again no. You are very mistaken.
>
> del_timer() return code is not a hint. Its a precise meaning.
>
> It cannot return 1 if the timer function is running or is about to run.
>
> If you believe there is bug in del_timer(), fix it ;)
>
>
Yes, you are right, __run_timers did this job.
So We still don't know what's the root 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