On 12/06/12 at 01:57pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 12/06/2012 01:44 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > >On 12/06/12 at 01:35pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > >>We may want to mark transports as dead sooner. Probably right about > >>the time we pull them off the list. > > > >We mark it dead in sctp_transport_free() which is called at the > >end of sctp_assoc_rm_peer(). Do you want to mark it dead at the > >beginning of sctp_assoc_rm_peer() as well? (We still need to > >mark in sctp_transport_free() anyway). > > Crud.. sctp_transport_free() is called directly in places... Hmm... > the one in sctp_association_free() may need to be list_del_rcu()... It's not really needed but it wouldn't be wrong from a documentation perspective. The assoc is always unhashed while holding head->lock before sctp_association_free() and all current RCU readers of transport_addr_list access the the assoc while holding a read-lock on head->lock. Let me respin this patch and do a list_del_rcu() there to document the RCU'iness of it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
