On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:41:51PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Chris Torek wrote:
> >>... Dropping the lock is entirely the wrong thing to do -- as
> >>you note, if we do, then the bridge members can change out from
> >>under us. The only path forward is to us
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Chris Torek wrote:
>>... Dropping the lock is entirely the wrong thing to do -- as
>>you note, if we do, then the bridge members can change out from
>>under us. The only path forward is to use an sx lock, but ...
> [snip]
>>In code paths that modify the list of br
>... Dropping the lock is entirely the wrong thing to do -- as
>you note, if we do, then the bridge members can change out from
>under us. The only path forward is to use an sx lock, but ...
[snip]
>In code paths that modify the list of bridge members, hold both the
>BRIDGE_LOCK and the new sx lo
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Chris Torek wrote:
> THE QUESTION:
>
> - Who is wrong, the bxe driver or the bridge code? I.e.,
>does the bridge driver need to release its lock here,
>and if so, is that actually safe to do? (We might need
>to restart the loop over all the members if
