On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 14:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > The WARN_ON() you suggested up front make perfect sense to me. > > > You can also take the definition of net_unlink_todo() out of > > > netdevice.h while at it because o_0 > > > > Heh indeed, what? > > To be clear - I just meant that it's declaring a static variable in > a header, so I doubt that it'll do the right thing unless it's only > called from one compilation unit. Right, it's odd. I just made a patch (will send in a minute) moving the entire block to dev.c, which is the only user of any of it. > > Ah, no. This isn't about locking in this case, it's literally about > > ensuring that free_netdev() has been called in netdev_run_todo()? > > Yup, multiple contexts sitting independently in netdev_run_todo() and > chewing on netdevs is slightly different. destructors of those netdevs > could be pointing at memory of a module being unloaded. Right, thanks. johannes
