On 02/19, David Howells wrote: > > Hmmm... You've got a work_struct (well, a delayed_work actually) - can you > just punt the destruction of the object over to keventd to perform, I wonder?
Yes, this is close (I think) to what I suggested, see below, > The big problem with that that I see is that the workqueue facility has no > guards in place against a work_struct's handler function running on several > CPUs at once in response to the same work_struct. Yes. And for this problem WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL does help, but not so much. It can prevent re-scheduling of the same work, but only if work->func() did not do work_release() yet. > > I think the fix should be so that port_carrier_check() does get/put on > > "struct net_bridge_port" (container), but not on "struct net_device", and > > I'm not sure how this helps. You still have to get rid of the net_device at > some point. Yes, destroy_nbp() does dev_put(dev). del_nbp() sets dev->br_port = NULL, port_carrier_check() goes to "done" in that case. So everething looks safe to me (but again, I do not even know what the "bridge" is :), so we should only take care about container, nothing more. I'll try to make a patch for illustration on evening. Oleg. - 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/
