[Open-FCoE] [PATCH V2 11/13] fcoe: add mutex to protect create and destroy
christopher.leech at intel.com
Wed Jul 8 22:40:25 UTC 2009
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:03:57PM -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote:
> Chris Leech wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 02:13:29PM -0700, Love, Robert W wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 10:40 -0700, Chris Leech wrote:
> >>> Rather than rely on the hostlist_lock to be held while creating exchange
> >>> managers, serialize fcoe instance creation and destruction with a mutex.
> >>> This will allow the hostlist addition to be moved out of fcoe_if_create(),
> >>> which will simplify NPIV support.
> >> Is there a reason that we don't use the rtnl_lock for protection? It's
> >> already held when we get the NETDEV_UNREGISTER event (added in patch
> >> 13/13). I believe that doing so would remove the need to defer the
> >> fcoe_destroy() call since the deferral is only needed so that we don't
> >> grab the rtnl_lock twice.
> > Mostly I'm just not a fan of putting other people locks/mutexs to our own
> > use. I think it confuses the issue of what is the mutex protecting, but
> > I don't see any technical barriers to doing it that way.
> > I thought there'd be more changes required; but I thought
> > dev_get_by_name() would be taking the rtnl mutex, it's not there's the
> > dev_base_lock protecting the list.
> > unregister_netdevice_notifier() takes rtnl, but I don't see an issue
> > with re-taking the mutex after calling that in fcoe_exit().
> Let's not drop and re-take it. Instead do the unregister before
> ever taking rtnl_lock.
That's what I meant, that calling the notifier unregister will take and
release rtnl and then we'll take it again after.
More information about the devel