On 21. 2. 14. 오전 4:07, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -static void mld_dad_start_timer(struct inet6_dev *idev, unsigned
long delay)
>> +static void mld_dad_start_work(struct inet6_dev *idev, unsigned
long delay)
>> {
>> unsigned long tv = prandom_u32() % delay;
>>
>> - if (!mod_timer(&idev->mc_dad_timer, jiffies+tv+2))
>> + if (!mod_delayed_work(mld_wq, &idev->mc_dad_work,
msecs_to_jiffies(tv + 2)))
>
> IIUC, before this patch 'delay' is in jiffies, after this patch it is
in msecs?
>
Ah, I understand, It's my mistake.
I didn't change the behavior of 'delay' in this patchset.
So, 'delay' is still in jiffies, not msecs.
Therefore, msecs_to_jiffies() should not be used in this patchset.
I will send a v3 patch, which doesn't use msecs_to_jiffies().
Thanks!
By the way, I think the 'delay' is from the
unsolicited_report_interval() and it just return value of
idev->cnf.mldv{1 | 2}_unsolicited_report_interval.
I think this value is msecs, not jiffies.
So, It should be converted to use msecs_to_jiffies(), I think.
How do you think about it?
> [...]
>
>> -static void mld_dad_timer_expire(struct timer_list *t)
>> +static void mld_dad_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> - struct inet6_dev *idev = from_timer(idev, t, mc_dad_timer);
>> + struct inet6_dev *idev = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
>> + struct inet6_dev,
>> + mc_dad_work);
>>
>> + rtnl_lock();
>
> Any reason why we need RTNL after converting the timer to
> delayed work?
>
For the moment, RTNL is not needed.
But the Resources, which are used by delayed_work will be protected by
RTNL instead of other locks.
So, It just pre-adds RTNL and the following patches will delete other locks.
> Thanks.
>
