From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] bnx2: remove cancel_work_sync() from remove_one
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:52:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D08C81D.8020606@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1292348880.7394.63.camel@nseg_linux_HP1.broadcom.com>
On 12/14/2010 06:48 PM, Michael Chan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 08:09 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael pointed out that bnx2_close() already cancels bp->reset_task
>> and thus it is guaranteed to be idle when bnx2_remove_one() is called.
>> Remove the unnecessary cancel_work_sync() in remove_one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>
>
> Acked-by: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>
After looking through the code, I don't think this is necessarily
correct. ->ndo_close() doesn't guarantee that the watchdog timer has
finished running (the timer is deleted with del_timer() not
del_timer_sync()). ie. the watchdog timer could still be running
after ->ndo_close() and may schedule reset_task. If remove_one
doesn't flush the task, it may still be running when remove_one() is
called.
David, am I missing something? Wouldn't it cleaner to guarantee that
->ndo_close() is called with the guarantee that the watchdog timer is
not running anymore?
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-15 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-14 16:09 [PATCH net-next-2.6] bnx2: remove cancel_work_sync() from remove_one Tejun Heo
2010-12-14 17:48 ` Michael Chan
2010-12-15 13:52 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-12-20 21:11 ` David Miller
2010-12-21 10:51 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-21 20:20 ` David Miller
2010-12-22 8:48 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D08C81D.8020606@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).