[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ed3fb510ba62f4911f4ffe01a197df3bb8cd969.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 22:36:10 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Lijun Pan <ljp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx5: count all link events
On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 13:56 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:18:36 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 12:51 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I assumed netif_carrier_event() would be used specifically in
> > > places
> > > driver is actually servicing a link event from the device, and
> > > therefore is relatively certain that _something_ has happened.
> >
> > then according to the above assumption it is safe to make
> > netif_carrier_event() do everything.
> >
> > netif_carrier_event(netdev, up) {
> > if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNINITIALIZED)
> > return;
> >
> > if (up == netif_carrier_ok(netdev) {
> > atomic_inc(&netdev->carrier_up_count);
> > atomic_inc(&netdev->carrier_down_count);
> > linkwatch_fire_event(netdev);
> > }
> >
> > if (up) {
> > netdev_info(netdev, "Link up\n");
> > netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> > } else {
> > netdev_info(netdev, "Link down\n");
> > netif_carrier_off(netdev);
> > }
> > }
>
> Two things to consider are:
> - some drivers print more info than just "link up/link down" so
> they'd
> have to drop that extra stuff (as much as I'd like the
> consistency)
+1 for the consistency
> - again with the unnecessary events I was afraid that drivers reuse
> the same handler for device events and to read the state in which
> case we may do something like:
>
> if (from_event && up == netif_carrier_ok(netdev)
>
I don't actually understand your point here .. what kind of scenarios
it is wrong to use this function ?
But anyway, the name of the function makes it very clear this is from
event..
also we can document this.
> Maybe we can revisit when there's more users?
goes both ways :), we can do what fits the requirement for mlx5 now and
revisit in the future, if we do believe this should be general behavior
for all/most vendors of-course!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists