Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Oh, sorry, I got confused by the comment near RCU_INIT_POINTER() in rcupdate.h. Now looking at their definitions I see. This patch can of course be dropped from the series. -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
