[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5310.1392689226@death.nxdomain>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:07:06 -0800
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.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()
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
>
> 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