On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:20 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:08 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > > index
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 19:20 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
[...]
> That was my initial assumption too, but Alexei told me it was fine.
> And I think he is correct because kfree_rcu doesn't need the rcu_head
> to be initialized.
>
> So in the end, we initialize the memory as a work_struct, and
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:08 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > index 9234174ccb21..fd05d4358b31 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > +++
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 9234174ccb21..fd05d4358b31 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -1096,12 +1096,19 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto
They are implemented as a workqueue, which means that there are no
guarantees of timing nor ordering.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
---
changes in v6:
- dropped extra spinlock
- implement cancel_and_free of a sleepable timer through
a dedicated workqueue
no changes in v5
changes in v4:
