On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 18:38 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:24:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> [...]
> > if (be->vif != NULL)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -417,12 +409,23 @@ static int backend_create_xenvif(struct backend_info
> > *be)
> > return (err < 0) ? err : -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > + script = xenbus_read(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "script", NULL);
> > + if (IS_ERR(script)) {
> > + int err = PTR_ERR(script);
> > + xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err, "reading script");
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > +
> > vif = xenvif_alloc(&dev->dev, dev->otherend_id, handle);
> > if (IS_ERR(vif)) {
> > err = PTR_ERR(vif);
> > xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err, "creating interface");
> > + kfree(script);
> > return err;
> > }
> > +
> > + vif->hotplug_script = script;
> > +
>
> IMO it's better we make xenvif_alloc accept a new parameter called
> "script" then allocate vif->hotplug_script there. Then free
> vif->hotplug_script in xenvif_free. This way it's less error prone
> because all memory allocated for vif is managed in proper place -
> xenvif_alloc and xenvif_free.
Well, except the allocation is still in xenbus_read via
backend_create_xenvif, but yes I think that refactoring would be an
improvement.
What about storing it in struct backend_info and setting/restoring in
netback_{probe,remove}? That might be best of all?
Ian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
