From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [Patch net v3 1/3] net_sched: get rid of tcfa_rcu
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:13:10 +0200
Message-ID: <20170913061310.GA1922@nanopsycho>
References: <20170911233332.7594-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
 <20170911233332.7594-2-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
 <20170912094215.GB2036@nanopsycho>
 <20170912104004.GE2036@nanopsycho>
 <CAM_iQpWN+OFdWZgKsm8qk58jFKqssOMMW8JM7N6FConHumQXxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170912213634.GS2036@nanopsycho>
 <CAM_iQpUwC6cMBOVuwgCsE+wL88OeL04qw2vSN7_Ng6_GCA5A=g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f177.google.com ([209.85.128.177]:37064 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750869AbdIMGNO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:13:14 -0400
Received: by mail-wr0-f177.google.com with SMTP id k20so26438450wre.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpUwC6cMBOVuwgCsE+wL88OeL04qw2vSN7_Ng6_GCA5A=g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:53:09PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:10:22PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>> This patch helps:
>>>
>>>Looks good to me. Please feel free to submit a formal patch.
>>
>> Okay, I will send the patch to you formally so you can add it as a first
>> patch of your patchset.
>
>I can carry it by myself if it fits to this patchset. However, I believe it
>should be independent since it has to be backported much further
>than this patchset. I don't know why no one triggered the crash
>before call_rcu() was introduced there.
>
>Anyway, I believe you should submit your patch alone, either before
>or after this patchset, there should be no conflict.

Okay. Will to it before the patchset. Thanks!