[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACKFLi=cwJzA+igWnKNsGdVqY9OvBPao4aheKF_j7PWc1xF3vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 00:10:32 -0800
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] bnxt_en: Add ethtool -N support for ether filters.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 11:04 PM Michal Swiatkowski
<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > + spin_lock_bh(&bp->ntp_fltr_lock);
> > + fltr = __bnxt_lookup_l2_filter(bp, key, idx);
> > + if (fltr) {
> > + fltr = ERR_PTR(-EEXIST);
> > + goto l2_filter_exit;
> > + }
> > + fltr = kzalloc(sizeof(*fltr), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!fltr) {
> > + fltr = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > + goto l2_filter_exit;
> > + }
> > + fltr->base.flags = flags;
> > + rc = bnxt_init_l2_filter(bp, fltr, key, idx);
> > + if (rc) {
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&bp->ntp_fltr_lock);
> Why filter needs to be deleted without lock? If you can change the order
> it looks more natural:
>
> +if (rc) {
> + fltr = ERR_PTR(rc);
> + goto l2_filter_del;
> +}
Thanks for the review. bnxt_del_l2_filter() will take the same lock
inside the function if it goes ahead to delete the filter. That's why
the lock needs to be released first.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4209 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists