Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:52:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:52:42 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]:33041 "EHLO smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:52:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:03:14 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Stephen Hemminger cc: Linus Torvalds , David Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Subject: Re: [PATCH] (1/8) Eliminate brlock in psnap In-Reply-To: <1047428075.15875.97.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Message-ID: References: <1047428075.15875.97.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 831 Lines: 30 Hi, On 11 Mar 2003, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > void unregister_snap_client(struct datalink_proto *proto) > { > - br_write_lock_bh(BR_NETPROTO_LOCK); > + static RCU_HEAD(snap_rcu); > > - list_del(&proto->node); > - kfree(proto); > + spin_lock_bh(&snap_lock); > + list_del_rcu(&proto->node); > + spin_unlock_bh(&snap_lock); > > - br_write_unlock_bh(BR_NETPROTO_LOCK); > + call_rcu(&snap_rcu, (void (*)(void *)) kfree, proto); > } Is this really correct? What happens with snap_rcu, if unregister_snap_client is called again, before the call_rcu callback finished? bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/