From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:39:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20080819083909.GG4376@ff.dom.local> References: <20080818.171124.192743795.davem@davemloft.net> <20080818.210701.80578862.davem@davemloft.net> <20080819064609.GA4376@ff.dom.local> <20080819072316.GA4878@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080819073558.GD4376@ff.dom.local> <20080819074606.GA5261@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080819075623.GE4376@ff.dom.local> <20080819080557.GA17977@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080819081713.GF4376@ff.dom.local> <20080819082355.GA28869@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, denys@visp.net.lb To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.251]:52812 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752770AbYHSIjR (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:39:17 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d40so318320and.103 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080819082355.GA28869@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:23:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 08:17:13AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > As I've written before I'm mainly concerned with things like > > tcf_destroy_chain(), especially wrt. cls_u32, but I can be wrong with > > this. So, if you don't have such concerns, let's forget it for now, > > and after I look at this more maybe we'll get back to this discussion. > > Well I can't vouch for every single qdisc in the tree. However, > what I can say is that as long as they respect the rules I outlined > earlier with regards to holding the root qdisc lock when deleting > or using children, then they'll work as expected. > > You're definitely welcome to audit the qdiscs to make sure that > they are obeying the rules. That's my point - is there really a reason do this change without such an audit if we are not forced at the moment? (I'd remind this way of doing things was entirely legal according to comments.) I doubt, I'm the right person for auditing this but as I said I'll have a look, especially when there will be lack of those fascinating oopses and warnings around. Cheers, Jarek P.