On 02/19, David Howells wrote:
>
> Hmmm... You've got a work_struct (well, a delayed_work actually) - can you
> just punt the destruction of the object over to keventd to perform, I wonder?
Yes, this is close (I think) to what I suggested, see below,
> The big problem with that that I see is that the workqueue facility has no
> guards in place against a work_struct's handler function running on several
> CPUs at once in response to the same work_struct.
Yes. And for this problem WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL does help, but not so much.
It can prevent re-scheduling of the same work, but only if work->func() did
not do work_release() yet.
> > I think the fix should be so that port_carrier_check() does get/put on
> > "struct net_bridge_port" (container), but not on "struct net_device", and
>
> I'm not sure how this helps. You still have to get rid of the net_device at
> some point.
Yes, destroy_nbp() does dev_put(dev). del_nbp() sets dev->br_port = NULL,
port_carrier_check() goes to "done" in that case. So everething looks safe
to me (but again, I do not even know what the "bridge" is :), so we should
only take care about container, nothing more.
I'll try to make a patch for illustration on evening.
Oleg.
-
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/
[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]
