Re: [PATCH net-next v2 05/10] net: sched: use Qdisc rcu API instead of relying on rtnl lock
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 22:04, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> +static void tcf_qdisc_put(struct Qdisc *q, bool rtnl_held)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!q)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + if (rtnl_held)
> >> + qdisc_put(q);
> >> + else
> >> + qdisc_put_unlocked(q);
> >> +}
> >
> > This is very ugly. You should know whether RTNL is held or
> > not when calling it.
> >
> > What's more, all of your code passes true, so why do you
> > need a parameter for rtnl_held?
>
> It passes true because currently rule update handlers still registered
> as locked. This is a preparation for next patch set where this would be
> changed to proper variable that depends on qdics and classifier type.
You can always add it when you really need it.
I doubt you need such a tiny wrapper even in the next patchset,
as it can be easily folded into callers.
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 05/10] net: sched: use Qdisc rcu API instead of relying on rtnl lock
On Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 22:04, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> +static void tcf_qdisc_put(struct Qdisc *q, bool rtnl_held)
>> +{
>> + if (!q)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (rtnl_held)
>> + qdisc_put(q);
>> + else
>> + qdisc_put_unlocked(q);
>> +}
>
> This is very ugly. You should know whether RTNL is held or
> not when calling it.
>
> What's more, all of your code passes true, so why do you
> need a parameter for rtnl_held?
It passes true because currently rule update handlers still registered
as locked. This is a preparation for next patch set where this would be
changed to proper variable that depends on qdics and classifier type.
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 05/10] net: sched: use Qdisc rcu API instead of relying on rtnl lock
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM Vlad Buslov wrote:
> +static void tcf_qdisc_put(struct Qdisc *q, bool rtnl_held)
> +{
> + if (!q)
> + return;
> +
> + if (rtnl_held)
> + qdisc_put(q);
> + else
> + qdisc_put_unlocked(q);
> +}
This is very ugly. You should know whether RTNL is held or
not when calling it.
What's more, all of your code passes true, so why do you
need a parameter for rtnl_held?
