> Quoting Moni Shoua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] [PATCH v2] IB/ipoib: Add bonding support > to IPoIB > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> Quoting Moni Shoua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] [PATCH v2] IB/ipoib: Add bonding > >> support to IPoIB > >> > >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>> Quoting Moni Shoua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] [PATCH v2] IB/ipoib: Add bonding > >>>> support to IPoIB > >>>> > >>>> This version of the patch tracks the allocs and releases of ipoib_neigh > >>>> and > >>>> keeps a list of them. Before IPoIB net device unregisters the list is > >>>> passed > >>>> to destroy ipoib_neighs that ride on on a bond neighbour. > >>>> > >>>> This is a replacement to the method of scanning the arp and ndisc > >>>> tables. > >>> Why does the list need to be global? > >>> We already have a per-device list of paths, and each of these in turn > >>> has a list of neighbours. Can't this be used? > >>> > >> OK, It's a good point but coming to think of it now I have a question > >> > >> When a device unregisters ipoib_stop() is called and all ipoib_neighs are > >> destroyed. > >> Isn't it enough to ensure that ipoib_neigh_destructor will not try to > >> "touch" one of the ib devs? or in other words: Isn't it that the work > >> to > >> clean ipoib_neighs is unnecessary? > >> > Michael, Do you agree that destroying the ipoib_neighs > through (a call trace that starts with) ipoib_stop() is enough for safety > and that there is no need to do that just before calling to > unregister_netdev() ?
Well, you have to make sure no one is caching either the device pointer or the destructor/setup pointers. -- MST _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
