From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:40:06 +0100 > 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. Any time there is a change to the series, you must resubmit the entire series. Thank you. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
