From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] nvmet-rdma: Correctly handle RDMA device hot removal Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:15:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20160801111530.GB16474@lst.de> References: <1469967347-20466-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1469967347-20466-1-git-send-email-sagi-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , Jay Freyensee , Ming Lin , Steve Wise List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This looks reasonable to me, but a little question below: > @@ -1442,7 +1491,8 @@ static void nvmet_rdma_remove_port(struct nvmet_port *port) > { > struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id = port->priv; > > - rdma_destroy_id(cm_id); > + if (cm_id) > + rdma_destroy_id(cm_id); > } How is ->remove_port synchronized vs the RDMA/CM even handler? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html