On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:06 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:04 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > The mac80211 module uses rcu_call() thus it should use rcu_barrier() > > > on module unload. > > > > > > I'm having a hardtime verifying that no more call_rcu() callbacks can > > > be schedules in the module unload path. Could a maintainer please > > > look into this? > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > net/mac80211/main.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/main.c b/net/mac80211/main.c > > > index 092a017..e9f70ce 100644 > > > --- a/net/mac80211/main.c > > > +++ b/net/mac80211/main.c > > > @@ -1100,6 +1100,8 @@ static void __exit ieee80211_exit(void) > > > ieee80211s_stop(); > > > > > > ieee80211_debugfs_netdev_exit(); > > > + > > > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */ > > > } > > > > I don't think this is correct at all -- note that call_rcu() is done in > > some of the mesh code, so I would think you need to do this in > > ieee80211_stop() since the call_rcu() code requires the interface to > > still be around. And when it's stopped everything should be idle. > > Should it then not be in mesh.c ieee80211_stop_mesh(). We can replace > the synchronize_rcu() in this function with a rcu_barrier(). Yes, this seems correct. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
