Re: [PATCH 4/4] bonding: Fix some RTNL taking

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:30:37PM +0900, Makito SHIOKAWA wrote:
>> 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.)

Probably the difference is not much, but since this all double locking,
unlocking and something between could take a while, and such a check
looks cheaper than re-queueing... But I don't persist in this.

Jarek P.