On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:19 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 23:17, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >> +static bool tcf_proto_is_empty(struct tcf_proto *tp)
> >> +{
> >> + struct tcf_walker walker = { .fn = walker_noop, };
> >> +
> >> + if (tp->ops->walk) {
> >> + tp->ops->walk(tp, &walker);
> >> + return !walker.stop;
> >> + }
> >> + return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static bool tcf_proto_check_delete(struct tcf_proto *tp)
> >> +{
> >> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> >> + if (tcf_proto_is_empty(tp))
> >> + tp->deleting = true;
> >> + spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
> >> + return tp->deleting;
> >
> > If you use this spinlock for walking each tp data structure,
> > why it is not needed for adding to/deleting filters from each
> > tp?
>
> This lock is intended to be used by unlocked classifiers and I use it in
> my following flower patch set extensively. Classifiers that do not set
> 'unlocked' flag continue to rely on rtnl lock for synchronization.
It is never late to add it when you seriously use it. The way you
split the patches is really annoying for reviewers...
