Herbert Xu wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:06:39PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:qdisc_destroy can still be invoked without qdisc_tree_lock via the deletion of a class when it calls qdisc_destroy to destroy its leaf qdisc.Indeed. Fortuantely HTB seems to be safe as it calls sch_tree_lock which is another name for qdisc_tree_lock. CBQ on the other hand needs to have a little tweak.
HTB also needs to be fixed. Destruction is usually defered by the refcnt until ->put(), htb_put() doesn't lock the tree. Same for HFSC and CBQ. Regards Patrick - 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: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- References:
- ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Tarhon-Onu Victor <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Tarhon-Onu Victor <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Tarhon-Onu Victor <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: jamal <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
- Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits)
- Next by Date: Re: via82xx driver: reporting dxs_support experience
- Previous by thread: Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- Next by thread: Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG?
- Index(es):
 |