[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVdO5G9a+C4FecORHOuO7uKu6=fqKa-CUTyFMd_heyU+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:17:09 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/17] net: sched: refactor tp insert/delete
for concurrent execution
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
> +static bool tcf_proto_is_empty(struct tcf_proto *tp)
> +{
> + struct tcf_walker walker = { .fn = walker_noop, };
> +
> + if (tp->ops->walk) {
> + tp->ops->walk(tp, &walker);
> + return !walker.stop;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static bool tcf_proto_check_delete(struct tcf_proto *tp)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> + if (tcf_proto_is_empty(tp))
> + tp->deleting = true;
> + spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
> + return tp->deleting;
If you use this spinlock for walking each tp data structure,
why it is not needed for adding to/deleting filters from each
tp?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists