Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:11:43PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> On module unload call rcu_barrier(), this is needed as synchronize_rcu() >> is not strong enough. The kmem_cache_destroy() does invoke >> synchronize_rcu() but it does not provide same protection. > > Good, looks like sctp_v4_del_protocol() invokes call_rcu(), which the > rcu_barrier() would then wait for. And it looks like sctp_v6_del_protocol() > does the same for IPv6. > > Reviewed_by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> net/sctp/protocol.c | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c >> index cb2c50d..79cbd47 100644 >> --- a/net/sctp/protocol.c >> +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c >> @@ -1370,6 +1370,8 @@ SCTP_STATIC __exit void sctp_exit(void) >> sctp_proc_exit(); >> cleanup_sctp_mibs(); >> >> + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */ >> + >> kmem_cache_destroy(sctp_chunk_cachep); >> kmem_cache_destroy(sctp_bucket_cachep); >> } >> Shouldn't the rcu_barrier call be before sctp_free_local_addr_list()? -vlad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
