Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:01 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net>, davidcs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange logic in r336438 Message-ID: <bcc3f952-5340-063c-ce21-5ba0b474c35c@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <c2fed140-f8a8-8173-9d64-b8b4be274334@vangyzen.net> References: <c2fed140-f8a8-8173-9d64-b8b4be274334@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-01-17 00:31, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > I was just reviewing r336438: > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=336438 > > In bxe_interrupt_detach(), the nested loops over sc->num_queues don't > look right. We drain the taskqueues for queue 0, but then free the > taskqueues for queues 1-N without draining them. Should the second loop > come _after_ the first loop, instead of _in_ it? > Hi, taskqueue_free() will do some kind of last minute draining, if you look at the implementation. However if you want to ensure all tasks are completed, taskqueue_drain() before free() is preferred. --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bcc3f952-5340-063c-ce21-5ba0b474c35c>