Paul E. McKenney writes:
> > We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
> > both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
> > This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take.
>
> True enough! One request -- would it be reasonable to add to
> trie_leaf_remove()'s comment to state that RTNL must be held
> by the caller?
Thanks for your review. Yes but it's implicitly assumed that updater
side holds RTNL and we have a comment that states we're run by updater.
If mention RTNL here we should probably comment other places too. ;)
Cheers
--ro
-
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
