Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:43:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Afaics, noautorel work_struct buys nothing for "struct net_bridge_port".
>
> If del_nbp()->cancel_delayed_work(&p->carrier_check) fails, port_carrier_check
> may be called later anyway. So the reading of *work in port_carrier_check() is
> equally unsafe with or without this patch.

I think this _WORK_NAR is to give some additional
control, but also is more logical: it lets to decide
when the work_struct is really release-able (and it's
definitely not before work function is called, as
without noautorel).

So, even if this functionality isn't used now, I can't
see what changing this could buy.

Regards,
Jarek P. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]