From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bridge: add rtnl_lock in fdb_flush in br_sysfs_br.c Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:55:46 +0100 Message-ID: <56E965E2.9050506@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <059d608901fd86407fed374e567c46447aa8c88f.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Xin Long , network dev Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:36617 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932209AbcCPNzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:55:49 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l124so49699759wmf.1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 06:55:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <059d608901fd86407fed374e567c46447aa8c88f.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/16/2016 02:34 PM, Xin Long wrote: > In fdb_delete, it will send rtnl msg, so before that, we should > hold rtnl_lock in the function that call it in sysfs. > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long > --- > net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > IIRC rtnl_notify() doesn't require rtnl lock to be held so this patch is not needed