hiren added a comment.
>>! In D1711#61, @hselasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is only one or two likely consumers of callout_init_rw() at the present
> moment, and one of them is:
>
> ./netinet6/nd6.c: canceled = callout_stop(&ln->ln_timer_ch);
> ./netinet6/nd6.c: canceled =
> callout_reset(&ln->ln_timer_ch, INT_MAX,
> ./netinet6/nd6.c: canceled =
> callout_reset(&ln->ln_timer_ch, tick,
> ./netinet6/in6.c: callout_init_rw(&lle->base.ln_timer_ch,
> &lle->base.lle_lock,
>
> hiren: Is this box configured for IPv6 ?
No, not for panic #3. But as I replied to rrs's comment, I need to first make
sure what tree we are running and if we are missing critical fixes from
stable-10.
>
> static void
> in_lltable_free(struct lltable *llt, struct llentry *lle)
> {
> LLE_WUNLOCK(lle);
> LLE_LOCK_DESTROY(lle);
> free(lle, M_LLTABLE);
> }
>
> ln_lltable_free() does not drain the callout associated with it and I am not
> sure if we have a sleeping context for that. Even if the refcount is zero, it
> doesn't mean that the callback is finished using the RW mutex.
>
> This is another example where we really need a
> "callout_drain_async_function()".
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1711
To: rrs, gnn, rwatson, lstewart, jhb, kostikbel, hselasky, adrian, imp, sbruno
Cc: hiren, jhb, kostikbel, emaste, delphij, neel, erj, freebsd-net
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
