On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> Looks like all due to the lack of locking on block->chain_list.
> I thought the rcu_barrier() could properly handle this,
> but seems still not, probably I need to move it in the loop,
> I am still not 100% sure if it
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:37:55PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:45:49PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it
Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:37:55PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:45:49PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>Yes it is for chain 0, because block holds a reference to chain 0 during
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:45:49PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Yes it is for chain 0, because block holds a reference to chain 0 during
>>creation. Non-0 chains are created with refcnt==1 too but paired with
Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:45:49PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 06:26:07AM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>This patch fixes the following madness of tc filter chain:
>>
>> Could you avoid
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 06:26:07AM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>This patch fixes the following madness of tc filter chain:
>
> Could you avoid expressive words like "madness" and such?
> Please be technical.
>
If the
Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 06:26:07AM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>This patch fixes the following madness of tc filter chain:
Could you avoid expressive words like "madness" and such?
Please be technical.
>
>1) tcf_chain_destroy() is called by both tcf_block_put() and
> tcf_chain_put().
This patch fixes the following madness of tc filter chain:
1) tcf_chain_destroy() is called by both tcf_block_put() and
tcf_chain_put(). tcf_chain_put() is correctly refcnt'ed and paired
with tcf_chain_get(), but tcf_block_put() is not, it should be paired
with tcf_block_get() which