[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vbfa7gpgkkq.fsf@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +0000
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: sched: flower: refactor reoffload for
concurrent access
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *in_skb,
>> goto errout_mask;
>>
>> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
>> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> + list_add(&fnew->hw_list, &head->hw_filters);
>> + spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> +
>> err = fl_hw_replace_filter(tp, fnew, rtnl_held, extack);
>> if (err)
>> goto errout_ht;
>
> Duplicated deletes should be fine, but I'm not sure same is true for
> adds. Won't seeing an add with the same cookie twice confuse drivers?
>
> There's also the minor issue of offloaded count being off in that
> case :)
Hmmm, okay. Rejecting duplicate cookies should be a trivial change to
drivers though. Do you see any faults with this approach in general?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists