On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:03:57PM -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote: > Chris Leech wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 02:13:29PM -0700, Love, Robert W wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 10:40 -0700, Chris Leech wrote: > >>> Rather than rely on the hostlist_lock to be held while creating exchange > >>> managers, serialize fcoe instance creation and destruction with a mutex. > >>> This will allow the hostlist addition to be moved out of fcoe_if_create(), > >>> which will simplify NPIV support. > >>> > >> Is there a reason that we don't use the rtnl_lock for protection? It's > >> already held when we get the NETDEV_UNREGISTER event (added in patch > >> 13/13). I believe that doing so would remove the need to defer the > >> fcoe_destroy() call since the deferral is only needed so that we don't > >> grab the rtnl_lock twice. > > > > Mostly I'm just not a fan of putting other people locks/mutexs to our own > > use. I think it confuses the issue of what is the mutex protecting, but > > I don't see any technical barriers to doing it that way. > > > > I thought there'd be more changes required; but I thought > > dev_get_by_name() would be taking the rtnl mutex, it's not there's the > > dev_base_lock protecting the list. > > > > unregister_netdevice_notifier() takes rtnl, but I don't see an issue > > with re-taking the mutex after calling that in fcoe_exit(). > > Let's not drop and re-take it. Instead do the unregister before > ever taking rtnl_lock.
That's what I meant, that calling the notifier unregister will take and release rtnl and then we'll take it again after. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
