On Thu Nov 14, 2024 at 2:58 PM CET, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Thursday, 14 November 2024 14:48:52 CET Nicolas Escande wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > We've been running this for a few time and it's very usefull. So is there > > any > > news on merging this into the kernel ? Or is the BLA thing blocking ? > > I am not in favour of changing the behavior of batman-adv. Now everyone can > increase the number of managed VLANs without any control by the node admin. Well ok but but it makes configuration so much easier in a setup where we have many vlan that I still find this usefull. > > And as Linus wrote, it also shows odd behaviors. And Antonio also didn't > write > his opinion here. I have therefore downgraded it from PATCH to RFC (instead > of > simply rejecting it). This is about the BLA behaviour ? On a setup that doesn't use BLA like mine it makes things so much easier to configure that I still find this patch usefull :) > > [...] > > Or maybe I missed something ? > > > > --- > > net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c > > b/net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c > > index b61f35918b5d..d7de54734725 100644 > > --- a/net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c > > +++ b/net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c > > @@ -599,7 +599,6 @@ batadv_softif_create_vlan(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, > > unsigned short vid) > > > > atomic_set(&vlan->ap_isolation, 0); > > > > - kref_get(&vlan->refcount); > > hlist_add_head_rcu(&vlan->list, &bat_priv->softif_vlan_list); > > spin_unlock_bh(&bat_priv->softif_vlan_list_lock); > > > > > > This ref is for the VLAN list entry (just one line below the kref_get). > This patch is therefore definitely wrong.
That's the part I have trouble understanding, we keep 1 ref for the list, 1 ref per TT entry using this vlan. And on interface deletion, we clear the TT tables (so we go back to a refcount of 1 for the global list), but I don't see where we clear the list itself ? > > Kind regards, > Sven
