On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:52:19 +0100 Eelco Chaudron wrote: > On 30 Oct 2020, at 22:28, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >> @@ -1695,6 +1695,9 @@ static int ovs_dp_cmd_new(struct sk_buff *skb, > >> struct genl_info *info) > >> if (err) > >> goto err_destroy_ports; > >> > >> + /* So far only local changes have been made, now need the lock. */ > >> + ovs_lock(); > > > > Should we move the lock below assignments to param? > > > > Looks a little strange to protect stack variables with a global lock. > > You are right, I should have moved it down after the assignment. I will > send out a v2. > > > Let's update the name of the label. > > Guess now it is, unlock and destroy meters, so what label are you > looking for? > > err_unlock_and_destroy_meters: which looks a bit long, or just > err_unlock:
I feel like I saw some names like err_unlock_and_destroy_meters in OvS code, but can't find them in this file right now. I'd personally go for kist err_unlock, or maybe err_unlock_ovs as is used in other functions in this file. But as long as it starts with err_unlock it's fine by me :)
