On 02/01/2016 12:01 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 02/01/2016 04:31 AM, zyjzyj2...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com> >> >> rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock are to protect the function >> bond_miimon_inspect. As such, moving rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock >> to the function bond_miimon_inspect to make the source code compact. >> >> CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosbu...@gmail.com> >> CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfal...@gmail.com> >> CC: Andy Gospodarek <go...@cumulusnetworks.com> >> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > > Not true, RCU also protects the slave dereference in > bond_should_notify_peers(). > Even though there's already a rcu_read_lock() while doing the dereference > itself, it is there only to please RCU, IIRC. The only "simplification" you
Err, I meant to please lockdep when being called with RTNL. > can do is remove the rcu_read_lock/unlock() around the slave deref in > bond_should_notify_peers and use rcu_dereference_rtnl() as it can be used > either > in RCU protected region or with RTNL held. Also I think net-next is still > closed (and that's where this should be targeted at). > > Cheers, > Nik > >
