Re: ROSE lockup fix

[Ralf Baechle DL5RB <ralf@linux-mips.org>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:08:43AM +0000, Ralf Baechle DL5RB wrote:

> Anyway, the problem is pretty obvious in your traceback and I'll cook a
> patch for you to test.

Can you test the patch below?

  Ralf

 net/rose/rose_route.c |    7 -------
 1 files changed, 7 deletions(-)

Index: linux-mips/net/rose/rose_route.c
===================================================================
--- linux-mips.orig/net/rose/rose_route.c
+++ linux-mips/net/rose/rose_route.c
@@ -48,8 +48,6 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rose_route_list_l
 
 struct rose_neigh *rose_loopback_neigh;
 
-static void rose_remove_neigh(struct rose_neigh *);
-
 /*
  *	Add a new route to a node, and in the process add the node and the
  *	neighbour if it is new.
@@ -235,11 +233,8 @@ static void rose_remove_neigh(struct ros
 
 	skb_queue_purge(&rose_neigh->queue);
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
-
 	if ((s = rose_neigh_list) == rose_neigh) {
 		rose_neigh_list = rose_neigh->next;
-		spin_unlock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
 		kfree(rose_neigh->digipeat);
 		kfree(rose_neigh);
 		return;
@@ -248,7 +243,6 @@ static void rose_remove_neigh(struct ros
 	while (s != NULL && s->next != NULL) {
 		if (s->next == rose_neigh) {
 			s->next = rose_neigh->next;
-			spin_unlock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
 			kfree(rose_neigh->digipeat);
 			kfree(rose_neigh);
 			return;
@@ -256,7 +250,6 @@ static void rose_remove_neigh(struct ros
 
 		s = s->next;
 	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
 }
 
 /*