Maybe I'm wrong, but since this read_lock() is given and taken anyway,
it seems this looks a bit better to me (why hold this rtnl longer
than needed?):
read_unlock(&bond->lock);
rtnl_unlock();
read_lock(&bond->lock);
Seems better.
On the other hand, probably 'if (bond->kill_timers)' could be repeated
after this read_lock() retaking.
Sorry, what do you mean? (A case that bond->kill_timers = 1 is done during
lock retaking, and work being queued only to do 'if (bond->kill_timers)'? If
so, I think that won't differ much.)
If this if () is really necessary here, then this should be better
before "delay = ..." with a block.
I agree.
--
Makito SHIOKAWA
MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
