From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Add RCU protection to assoc->transport_addr_list
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:44:33 +0000
Message-ID: <20121206184433.GE16122@casper.infradead.org>
References: <16453bea94a6fc43d657139dff2ce0b5924e2a1f.1354817574.git.tgraf@suug.ch>
 <50C0E585.1080701@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:43600 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1946674Ab2LFSoe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:44:34 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50C0E585.1080701@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 12/06/12 at 01:35pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> We may want to mark transports as dead sooner.  Probably right about
> the time we pull them off the list.

We mark it dead in sctp_transport_free() which is called at the
end of sctp_assoc_rm_peer(). Do you want to mark it dead at the
beginning of sctp_assoc_rm_peer() as well? (We still need to
mark in sctp_transport_free() anyway).

> When displaying, we may want to
> look at transport->dead, and skip them.  It will reduce the probability
> that we would be looking at a transport that's about to go away.

Agreed.