On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 20:36 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hah, I suspected as much but didn't have a chance to look yet. I had > > plans to replace that sub_if_list with an RCU list and not require the > > lock there, but that's far off. Any ideas how to fix this? We can't > > reject the master stop so we have to walk the list, I guess we'll have > > to audit the other list manipulation places, I think they're all under > > RTNL. > > Yeah I think they're all under RTNL too. So you don't need to > take the lock here at all since you should already have the RTNL. I'll take a look at them and post appropriate patches. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
