On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:06:54 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/flow_offload.c b/net/core/flow_offload.c
> index 64c3d4d72b9c..cf52d9c422fa 100644
> --- a/net/core/flow_offload.c
> +++ b/net/core/flow_offload.c
> @@ -391,6 +391,8 @@ static void flow_indr_block_cb_del(struct
> flow_indr_block_cb *indr_block_cb)
> kfree(indr_block_cb);
> }
>
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(flow_indr_block_ing_cb_lock);
I'd be tempted to place this definition next to:
static LIST_HEAD(block_ing_cb_list);
as it seems this is the list it protects. The reason for the name
discrepancy between the two is not immediately obvious to me :S
but you're not changing that.
Otherwise makes sense, so FWIW:
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> static void flow_block_ing_cmd(struct net_device *dev,
> flow_indr_block_bind_cb_t *cb,
> void *cb_priv,
> @@ -398,11 +400,11 @@ static void flow_block_ing_cmd(struct net_device *dev,
> {
> struct flow_indr_block_ing_entry *entry;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &block_ing_cb_list, list) {
> + mutex_lock(&flow_indr_block_ing_cb_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &block_ing_cb_list, list) {
> entry->cb(dev, cb, cb_priv, command);
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + mutex_unlock(&flow_indr_block_ing_cb_lock);
> }
