[IPV4]: Do not disable preemption in trie_leaf_remove().
Hello, Just discussed this Patrick... We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff. This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take. > Mhh .. I think I just remembered something - me incorrectly suggesting > to add it there while we were talking about this at OLS :) IIRC the > idea was to make sure tnode_free (which at that time didn't use > call_rcu) wouldn't free memory while still in use in a rcu read-side > critical section. It should have been synchronize_rcu of course, > but with tnode_free using call_rcu it seems to be completely > unnecessary. So I guess we can simply remove it. Signed-off-by: Robert Olsson <robert.olsson@its.uu.se> Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
db98e0b434
commit
d5cc4a73a5
1 changed files with 0 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -1527,7 +1527,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie *t, t_key key)
|
|||
t->revision++;
|
||||
t->size--;
|
||||
|
||||
preempt_disable();
|
||||
tp = NODE_PARENT(n);
|
||||
tnode_free((struct tnode *) n);
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1537,7 +1536,6 @@ static int trie_leaf_remove(struct trie *t, t_key key)
|
|||
rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, trie_rebalance(t, tp));
|
||||
} else
|
||||
rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, NULL);
|
||||
preempt_enable();
|
||||
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue