On 9/2/14, 3:28 PM, "Pravin Shelar" wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
> wrote:
>> On 9/2/14, 1:39 PM, "Pravin Shelar" wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
>>> wrote:
dp_netdev_free() must free 'dp->upcall_rwlock', but when upcalls are
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
wrote:
> On 9/2/14, 1:39 PM, "Pravin Shelar" wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
>> wrote:
>>> dp_netdev_free() must free 'dp->upcall_rwlock', but when upcalls are
>>>disabled
>>> (if the datapath is being freed upcal
On 9/2/14, 1:39 PM, "Pravin Shelar" wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
> wrote:
>> dp_netdev_free() must free 'dp->upcall_rwlock', but when upcalls are
>>disabled
>> (if the datapath is being freed upcalls should be disabled)
>>'dp->upcall_rwlock'
>> is taken and freeing
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
wrote:
> dp_netdev_free() must free 'dp->upcall_rwlock', but when upcalls are disabled
> (if the datapath is being freed upcalls should be disabled)
> 'dp->upcall_rwlock'
> is taken and freeing it causes an assertion to fail.
>
> This commit ta
dp_netdev_free() must free 'dp->upcall_rwlock', but when upcalls are disabled
(if the datapath is being freed upcalls should be disabled) 'dp->upcall_rwlock'
is taken and freeing it causes an assertion to fail.
This commit takes makes sure that the upcalls are disabled and releases
'dp->upcall_rwl
