[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVrD5623egpEy2BhR66smuEaTLRHgsu9YA_vrMGjacPkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:18:04 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
jwi@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
gor@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
Marek Lindner <mareklindner@...mailbox.ch>,
sw@...onwunderlich.de, a@...table.cc, sven@...fation.org,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, dsahern@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/7] mld: add a new delayed_work, mc_delrec_work
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 9:52 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The goal of mc_delrec_work delayed work is to call mld_clear_delrec().
> The mld_clear_delrec() is called under both data path and control path.
> So, the context of mld_clear_delrec() can be atomic.
> But this function accesses struct ifmcaddr6 and struct ip6_sf_list.
> These structures are going to be protected by RTNL.
> So, this function should be called in a sleepable context.
Hmm, but with this patch mld_clear_delrec() is called asynchronously
without waiting, is this a problem? If not, please explain why in your
changelog.
By the way, if you do not use a delay, you can just use regular work.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists