On Mon 18 Feb 2019 at 19:55, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
I made a decision to put all required cls API changes so at this point
anyone can implement their own rtnl-unlocked classifier (or refactor
existing one for unlocked execution) without any further changes to cls
API. However, I can see how this can be confusing to reviewer,
especially if they are not familiar with proposed flower changes. I will
split my patches according to your suggestions in the future.
Thanks,
Vlad
