Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261318AbVDISm0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:42:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261369AbVDISmZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:42:25 -0400 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:6890 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261318AbVDISmW (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:42:22 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:42:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Manfred Spraul X-X-Sender: manfred@dbl.q-ag.de To: Francois Romieu cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 3/4] Change synchronize_kernel to _rcu and _sched In-Reply-To: <20050409122045.GA6073@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Message-ID: 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: 847 Lines: 28 On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Francois Romieu wrote: > Manfred Spraul : > > [Jeff added to cc list - it's a network driver question] > [...] > > I haven't read the whole driver, but what about > > spin_unlock_wait(&dev->xmit_lock); > > ? > > The race here is a dev->close() against dev->hard_start_xmit() one where > dev->hard_start_xmit() does not do any locking at all. > I always thought that all callers of dev->hard_start_xmit() acquire dev->xmit_lock before calling hard_start_xmit(). Is that assumption wrong? I think I even rely on that in one of my drivers. -- Manfred - 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/