On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:53:33PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Oh. Interesting. Yeah, I guess that should be OK then.
>
> It's not *nice*, since that's pretty much unexpected, and you then do
> need the rcu_read_lock() ... hmm.
Yeah, I puzzled over that a bit last week as well -- I rewrote it like
this in the series I haven't posted yet:
void mesh_path_flush_by_nexthop(struct sta_info *sta)
{
[...]
rhashtable_walk_start(&iter);
while ((mpath = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter))) {
if (IS_ERR(mpath) && PTR_ERR(mpath) == -EAGAIN)
continue;
if (IS_ERR(mpath))
break;
if (rcu_access_pointer(mpath->next_hop) == sta)
__mesh_path_del(tbl, mpath);
}
rhashtable_walk_stop(&iter);
[...]
}
...this still relies on the rcu read lock inside _walk_start and _walk_stop,
though.
--
Bob Copeland %% http://bobcopeland.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
