On 06/25/2015 07:13 AM, Erez Shitrit wrote:
@@ -3864,14 +3904,23 @@ static void cm_remove_one(struct ib_device *ib_device)
list_del(&cm_dev->list);
write_unlock_irqrestore(&cm.device_lock, flags);
+ spin_lock_irq(&cm.lock);
+ cm_dev->going_down = 1;
+ spin_unlock_irq(&cm.lock);
+
for (i = 1; i <= ib_device->phys_port_cnt; i++) {
if (!rdma_cap_ib_cm(ib_device, i))
continue;
port = cm_dev->port[i-1];
ib_modify_port(ib_device, port->port_num, 0, &port_modify);
- ib_unregister_mad_agent(port->mad_agent);
+ /*
+ * We flush the queue here after the going_down set, this
+ * verify that no new works will be queued in the recv handler,
+ * after that we can call the unregister_mad_agent
+ */
flush_workqueue(cm.wq);
+ ib_unregister_mad_agent(port->mad_agent);
cm_remove_port_fs(port);
}
device_unregister(cm_dev->device);
Hello Erez,
How about splitting unregister_mad_agent() into two functions, one that
stops the invocation of the receive callbacks and another one that
cancels all sends ? If the new function that stops the receive callbacks
would be invoked before flush_workqueue(), would that be safe ? Would
that allow to drop the new flag "going_down" since the workqueue
implementation already sets __WQ_DRAINING ?
Thanks,
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
