[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514151641.GD1848@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:16:41 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org,
kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, fw@...len.de, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, edumazet@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, kliteyn@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] net: sched: implement unlocked action init API
Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:05PM CEST, vladbu@...lanox.com wrote:
>Add additional 'unlocked' argument to act API init functions.
>Argument is true when rtnl lock is not taken and false otherwise.
>It is required to implement actions that need to release rtnl lock before
>loading kernel module and reacquire if afterwards.
>
>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
[...]
>@@ -721,9 +722,11 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
> a_o = tc_lookup_action_n(act_name);
> if (a_o == NULL) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>- rtnl_unlock();
>+ if (!unlocked)
>+ rtnl_unlock();
> request_module("act_%s", act_name);
>- rtnl_lock();
>+ if (!unlocked)
>+ rtnl_lock();
Although I don't like this conditional locking scheme, I see no other
way to solve this :/ But I think would be better perhaps to rename
"unlocked" to something like "rtnl_held".
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists