On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:09:58 -0700 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 14:42 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > RCU_INIT_POINTER() is not suitable here as it doesn't give us ordering > > guarantees (see the comment in rcupdate.h). This is also not a hotpath. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > > index bfc79698b8f4..12efb3e34775 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ void netvsc_device_remove(struct hv_device *device) > > > > netvsc_revoke_buf(device, net_device); > > > > - RCU_INIT_POINTER(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); > > + rcu_assign_pointer(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); > > I see no point for this patch. > > Setting a NULL pointer needs no barrier at all. Agreed with Eric.
