On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:34:16AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > That seems like unneeded complexity when the issue is just the order > that these were created in versus the order they are freed in. As long > as we always destroy the one containing the alias before the one that > has the actual data we don't need to have a reference count. Basically > the issue is the bring-up and the tear-down order. It isn't something > that really needs a reference count since it would always be either 1 > or 2. My preference would be to just add a comment explaining that > local must always be destroyed before the main trie in order to > guarantee that there are no external references to the data contained > in main when it is freed. > > The one question I have in all this is if I did the bring-up in the > right order in the first place. I'm wondering if local should be where > the combined trie lives instead of main. Local is currently destroyed > after main anyway so I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if > everything lived in local since from what I can tell it looks like we > add rules for local first before we do so in main. The complexity of > that patch would be higher though since the patch would need to be > much larger and touch multiple files.
I decided to go with the original patch because it resulted in a very small diff (patch is needed in -stable as well), but I agree with Dave about it not being explicit enough. How about I'll send v2 with a comment and then we can try Alex's suggestion in net-next? Thanks
