[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YQwnr/qel0oktItP@unreal>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 21:02:23 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] netdevsim: Forbid devlink reload when adding
or deleting ports
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 08:35:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 08:27:56AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:33:35 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 07:23:42AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > This is what devlink_reload_disable() returns, so I kept same error.
> > > > > It is not important at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about the following change on top of this patch?
> > > >
> > > > LGTM, the only question is whether we should leave in_reload true
> > > > if nsim_dev->fail_reload is set.
> > >
> > > I don't think so, it will block add/delete ports.
> >
> > As it should, given add/delete ports takes the port_list_lock which is
> > destroyed by down but not (due to the forced failure) re-initialized by
> > up.
> >
> > If we want to handle adding ports while down we can just bump port
> > count and return, although I don't think there's a practical need
> > to support that.
>
> Sorry, but for me netdevsim looks like complete dumpster. It was
> intended for fast prototyping, but ended to be huge pile of debugfs
> entries and selftest to execute random flows.
>
> Do you want me to move in_reload = false line to be after if (nsim_dev->fail_reload)
> check?
BTW, the current implementation where in_reload before if, actually
preserves same behaviour as was with devlink_reload_enable() implementation.
Thanks
>
> Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists