[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201102115123.0f7460cc@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:51:23 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Eelco Chaudron" <echaudro@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: openvswitch: silence suspicious RCU usage
warning
On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:52:19 +0100 Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 22:28, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> @@ -1695,6 +1695,9 @@ static int ovs_dp_cmd_new(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >> struct genl_info *info)
> >> if (err)
> >> goto err_destroy_ports;
> >>
> >> + /* So far only local changes have been made, now need the lock. */
> >> + ovs_lock();
> >
> > Should we move the lock below assignments to param?
> >
> > Looks a little strange to protect stack variables with a global lock.
>
> You are right, I should have moved it down after the assignment. I will
> send out a v2.
>
> > Let's update the name of the label.
>
> Guess now it is, unlock and destroy meters, so what label are you
> looking for?
>
> err_unlock_and_destroy_meters: which looks a bit long, or just
> err_unlock:
I feel like I saw some names like err_unlock_and_destroy_meters in OvS
code, but can't find them in this file right now.
I'd personally go for kist err_unlock, or maybe err_unlock_ovs as is
used in other functions in this file.
But as long as it starts with err_unlock it's fine by me :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists