From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] bnx2: remove cancel_work_sync() from remove_one
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:52:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D08C81D.8020606@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1292348880.7394.63.camel@nseg_linux_HP1.broadcom.com>
On 12/14/2010 06:48 PM, Michael Chan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 08:09 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael pointed out that bnx2_close() already cancels bp->reset_task
>> and thus it is guaranteed to be idle when bnx2_remove_one() is called.
>> Remove the unnecessary cancel_work_sync() in remove_one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>
>
> Acked-by: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>
After looking through the code, I don't think this is necessarily
correct. ->ndo_close() doesn't guarantee that the watchdog timer has
finished running (the timer is deleted with del_timer() not
del_timer_sync()). ie. the watchdog timer could still be running
after ->ndo_close() and may schedule reset_task. If remove_one
doesn't flush the task, it may still be running when remove_one() is
called.
David, am I missing something? Wouldn't it cleaner to guarantee that
->ndo_close() is called with the guarantee that the watchdog timer is
not running anymore?
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-15 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-14 16:09 [PATCH net-next-2.6] bnx2: remove cancel_work_sync() from remove_one Tejun Heo
2010-12-14 17:48 ` Michael Chan
2010-12-15 13:52 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-12-20 21:11 ` David Miller
2010-12-21 10:51 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-21 20:20 ` David Miller
2010-12-22 8:48 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D08C81D.8020606@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.