[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5302D858.5020802@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:49:44 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC: <vfalico@...hat.com>, <andy@...yhouse.net>,
<cwang@...pensource.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<thomas@...nzmann.de>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bonding: add new slave param and bond_slave_state_notify()
On 2014/2/18 10:07, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>> Add a new slave parameter which called should_notify, if the slave's state
>> changed and don't notify yet, the parameter will be set to 1, and then if
>> the slave's state changed again, the param will be set to 0, it indicate that
>> the slave's state has been restored, no need to notify any one.
>>
>> The bond_slave_state_notify() will check whether the status changed and then
>> decide to notify or not.
>>
>> Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h b/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>> index d210124..4d0cd41 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>> @@ -195,7 +195,8 @@ struct slave {
>> s8 new_link;
>> u8 backup:1, /* indicates backup slave. Value corresponds with
>> BOND_STATE_ACTIVE and BOND_STATE_BACKUP */
>> - inactive:1; /* indicates inactive slave */
>> + inactive:1, /* indicates inactive slave */
>> + should_notify:1; /* indicateds whether the state changed */
>> u8 duplex;
>> u32 original_mtu;
>> u32 link_failure_count;
>> @@ -311,8 +312,47 @@ static inline void bond_set_slave_state(struct slave *slave,
>> else
>> return;
>>
>> - if (notify)
>> + if (notify) {
>> rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, slave->dev, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + slave->should_notify = 0;
>> + } else {
>> + if (slave->should_notify)
>> + slave->should_notify = 0;
>> + else
>> + slave->should_notify = 1;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void bond_slave_state_notify(struct bonding *bond,
>> + bool rtnl_locked)
>> +{
>> + struct list_head *iter;
>> + struct slave *tmp;
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + bond_for_each_slave_rcu(bond, tmp, iter) {
>> + if (tmp->should_notify) {
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + goto should_notify;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return;
>> +
>> +should_notify:
>> +
>> + if (!rtnl_locked && !rtnl_trylock())
>> + return;
>> +
>> + bond_for_each_slave(bond, tmp, iter) {
>> + if (tmp->should_notify) {
>> + rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, tmp->dev, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + tmp->should_notify = 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!rtnl_locked)
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>> }
>
> This function (bond_slave_state_notify) seems overly complicated
> given that there appears to be only one caller. In particular, why
> bother with the "rtnl_locked" flag at all, when it is never called with
> it set to true? Really, with only one caller (in patch 3 of the
> series), I'm not convinced this even needs to be a separate function.
>
> -J
>
In my original opinion, I think it may be used in RTNL for other monitor,
so add this one, I will remove it, thanks.
Regards
Ding
>>
>> static inline void bond_slave_state_change(struct bonding *bond)
>> --
>> 1.8.0
>
> ---
> -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
>
>
> .
>
--
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