[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b8463e12-d1eb-d862-c5f4-09fc0ac33382@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:29:55 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
BjörnTöpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com
Cc: eugenia@...lanox.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, galp@...lanox.com,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next V5 PATCH 11/15] page_pool: refurbish version of
page_pool code
On 03/23/2018 05:18 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> +
> +void page_pool_destroy_rcu(struct page_pool *pool)
> +{
> + call_rcu(&pool->rcu, __page_pool_destroy_rcu);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_destroy_rcu);
>
Why do we need to respect one rcu grace period before destroying a page pool ?
In any case, this should be called page_pool_destroy()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists