On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:07 +0000, Anoob Soman wrote: > On 13/02/17 14:50, Anoob Soman wrote: > > On 13/02/17 14:26, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 13:28 +0000, Anoob Soman wrote: > >> > >>> Wouldn't it be easier to call synchronize_net(), before calling > >>> fanout_release_data() and kfree(f). > >>> The behavior, wrt synchronize_net, would be same as before and > >>> fanout_release() will cleanup everything without leaving any residue. > >> So we would require two synchronize_net() calls instead of one ? > >> > >> synchronize_net() is very expensive on some hosts, it is a big hammer. > >> > >> > >> > > > > Yes, one before fanout_release_data() (will be called only if > > fanout->sk_ref == 0) and one after fanout_release(). > > > > I understand synchronize_net() is expensive, but adding another > > synchronize_net(), before fanout_release_data(), will be no different > > from what we have in the existing code. > > > > I can also make sure second synchronize_net() doesn't get called > > again, if fanout_release() calls synchronize_net(), by making > > fanout_release() return something to indicate it has done > > synchronize_net(). > > Hi Eric, > > Did you get a chance to looks at my comments ?
You misunderstood my suggestion. I simply suggested to move the code, not adding another synchronize_net()
