Re: [PATCH 3/5] can: af_can.c use rcu_barrier() on module unload.

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:11:38PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> This module uses rcu_call() thus it should use rcu_barrier()
> on module unload.

This does appear to make things better!!!

However, I don't understand why it is safe to do the following in
can_exit():

	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(d, n, next, &can_rx_dev_list, list) {
		hlist_del(&d->list);
		kfree(d);
	}

Given that this list is scanned by RCU readers, shouldn't this kfree()
be something like "call_rcu(&d->rcu, can_rx_delete_device);"?

Also, what frees up the "struct receiver" structures?

							Thanx, Paul

> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
>  net/can/af_can.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
> index 10f0528..e733725 100644
> --- a/net/can/af_can.c
> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c
> @@ -903,6 +903,8 @@ static __exit void can_exit(void)
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&can_rcvlists_lock);
> 
> +	rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */
> +
>  	kmem_cache_destroy(rcv_cache);
>  }
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/