On 5/25/2018 3:37 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
+ spin_lock(&failover_lock);
Since register is not in fast path, this should be a mutex?
This is Jiri's comment which made me to switch to spinlock from mutex
>> Why mutex? Apparently you don't need to sleep while holding a lock.
>> Simple spinlock would do.
+int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
+{
+ struct net_device *failover_dev;
+ struct failover_ops *fops;
+
+ if (!netif_is_failover_slave(slave_dev))
+ goto done;
+
+ ASSERT_RTNL();
+
+ failover_dev = failover_get_bymac(slave_dev->perm_addr, &fops);
+ if (!failover_dev)
+ goto done;
Since the slave device must have a master device set already, why not use
that instead of searching by MAC address on unregister or link change.
We also need to get the fops(failover_ops)
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
