[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D10502.1000308@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 09:46:58 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: vxlan: when lower dev unregisters remove
vxlan dev as well
On 01/11/2014 01:49 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> @@ -2673,13 +2712,14 @@ static __net_init int vxlan_init_net(struct net *net)
>> static __net_exit void vxlan_exit_net(struct net *net)
>> {
>> struct vxlan_net *vn = net_generic(net, vxlan_net_id);
>> - struct vxlan_dev *vxlan;
>> - LIST_HEAD(list);
>> + struct vxlan_dev *vxlan, *next;
>> + LIST_HEAD(list_kill);
>>
>> rtnl_lock();
>> - list_for_each_entry(vxlan, &vn->vxlan_list, next)
>> - unregister_netdevice_queue(vxlan->dev, &list);
>> - unregister_netdevice_many(&list);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(vxlan, next, &vn->vxlan_list, next)
>> + vxlan_dellink(vxlan->dev, &list_kill);
>> + unregister_netdevice_many(&list_kill);
>> + list_del(&list_kill);
>
> The last list_del() looks suspicous... Since list_kill is a local list head,
> why do we need to delete the head at the end??
Cong, maybe I'm missing something, but we're doing this rtnl_dellink()
and elsewehere, e.g. commit 226bd341147 ("net: use batched device unregister
in veth and macvlan").
--
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