[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314804352.2741.4.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:25:51 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: allow notifier subscribers to forbid
device from closing
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 17:15 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> In some situations, like when the device is used as slave device in
> bond/br/etc it is not nice if someone closes the device. This allows
> it's masters to forbid this closure.
No it doesn't.
[...]
> @@ -1269,9 +1282,12 @@ static int dev_close_many(struct list_head *head)
> struct net_device *dev, *tmp;
> LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
>
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, head, unreg_list)
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, head, unreg_list) {
> if (!(dev->flags & IFF_UP))
> list_move(&dev->unreg_list, &tmp_list);
> + else
> + __dev_pre_close(dev);
> + }
>
> __dev_close_many(head);
The return value is ignored here.
And this is called from dev_close(), where you are adding the
notification as well. So the notifier will usually be called twice.
[...]
> @@ -1397,6 +1418,7 @@ rollback:
> break;
>
> if (dev->flags & IFF_UP) {
> + nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_PRE_DOWN, dev);
> nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_GOING_DOWN, dev);
> nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_DOWN, dev);
> }
[...]
The return value has to be ignored here. Not sure it makes any sense to
call the notifier at all.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists