Paul E. McKenney schrieb:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> From: Frank Blaschka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> List of major changes and improvements:
>> no manipulation of the global ARP constructor
>> clean code split into core, layer 2 and layer 3 functionality
>> better exploitation of the ethtool interface
>> better representation of the various hardware capabilities
>> fix packet socket support (tcpdump), no fake_ll required
>> osasnmpd notification via udev events
>> coding style and beautification
>
> One question below...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Blaschka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ---
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>> +static void qeth_l3_vlan_rx_add_vid(struct net_device *dev, unsigned short
>> vid)
>> +{
>> + struct net_device *vlandev;
>> + struct qeth_card *card = (struct qeth_card *) dev->priv;
>> + struct in_device *in_dev;
>> +
>> + if (card->info.type == QETH_CARD_TYPE_IQD)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + vlandev = vlan_group_get_device(card->vlangrp, vid);
>> + vlandev->neigh_setup = qeth_l3_neigh_setup;
>> +
>> + in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(vlandev);
>
> Is this really in an RCU read-side critical section? Or is this just
> using common code?
>
> Thanx, Paul
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Hi Paul,
thanks for pointing at this. Using __in_dev_get_rcu without the rcu lock
is probably a bug at this place (right?). Using in_dev_get/in_dev_put
would be more appropriate. Same for qeth_l3_free_vlan_addresses4(), here
we take the rcu read lock, but in_dev_get/in_dev_put would be the better
choice. What do you think?
Best regards,
Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
