On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 05:23:16PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
This case is quite clear.
By convention, there was always this comment that destroy is under
sch_tree_lock(), so it was legal to depend on this. I'm not afraid
of somebody using such an under destroy qdisc - it's about a code
inside this qdisc could refer to not destroyed part.
Sure, I'll try to look for such problems.
Cheers,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html