[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529FF066.1070307@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:17:58 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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 2013/12/5 8:32, Gao feng wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, I miss it, the running timer is detached from the list, thanks for all above.
Regards
Ding
>
--
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