Please use a more meaningful patch summary. This one is too generic.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:27:11PM +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
...
> +int tcf_idr_find_delete(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 index)
What about naming it tcf_idr_delete_index() instead?
The find operation is always implicit when you don't specify the
object itself directly, and then it describes which key will be used.
> +{
> + struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
> + struct tc_action *p;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
> + p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, index);
> + if (!p) {
> + spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock);
> + return -ENOENT;
> + }
> +
> + if (!atomic_read(&p->tcfa_bindcnt)) {
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&p->tcfa_refcnt)) {
> + struct module *owner = p->ops->owner;
> +
> + WARN_ON(p != idr_remove(&idrinfo->action_idr,
> + p->tcfa_index));
> + spin_unlock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
> +
> + tcf_action_cleanup(p);
> + module_put(owner);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + ret = 0;
> + } else {
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_idr_find_delete);
...
