Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932086AbXBSL17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:27:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932097AbXBSL17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:27:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40226 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932086AbXBSL16 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:27:58 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20070218214359.GA4226@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070218214359.GA4226@tv-sign.ru> To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , Jarek Poplawski , "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:27:33 +0000 Message-ID: <8462.1171884453@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 747 Lines: 23 Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Afaics, noautorel work_struct buys nothing for "struct net_bridge_port". You may be right. > If del_nbp()->cancel_delayed_work(&p->carrier_check) fails, port_carrier_check > may be called later anyway. Called by what? Something outside of br_if.c? > So the reading of *work in port_carrier_check() is equally unsafe with or > without this patch. Hmmm... cancel_delayed_work() in del_nbp() probably ought to be followed by a flush_scheduled_work(). David - 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/