On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 14:42 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > RCU_INIT_POINTER() is not suitable here as it doesn't give us ordering > guarantees (see the comment in rcupdate.h). This is also not a hotpath. > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > index bfc79698b8f4..12efb3e34775 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ void netvsc_device_remove(struct hv_device *device) > > netvsc_revoke_buf(device, net_device); > > - RCU_INIT_POINTER(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); > + rcu_assign_pointer(net_device_ctx->nvdev, NULL); I see no point for this patch. Setting a NULL pointer needs no barrier at all. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
