From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add IPv6 address checkpoint handler Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:47:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20100412174756.GA15269@us.ibm.com> References: <1270748932-26745-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1270748932-26745-4-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20100412161148.GC23380@us.ibm.com> <871vekbmen.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871vekbmen.fsf-FLMGYpZoEPULwtHQx/6qkW3U47Q5hpJU@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dan Smith Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dan Smith (danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org): > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_NETNS_CHECKPOING > > SH> How could that be defined? :) > > Hmm, I must have typo'd that after I did all my config testing because > otherwise I wouldn't have been able to test checkpointing ipv6 stuff. > > SH> Again, I'd prefer ckpt_err here. > > SH> Note that in my last email that really was a q - if you're under > SH> spinlock here, then you can't use ckpt_err(). > > Right, the point of this loop was to iterate the list quickly while > holding the device lock, so we could write out the results after we > release it. > > I think these two cases (and the ipv4 case) are pretty unlikely to be > a problem as they would only be triggered if you actually have > active multicast or anycast sessions configured. This will not > trigger for the default addresses. > > I don't think that dropping the lock to do ckpt_err() would be very > pretty, nor would introducing a result string for an error message. Agreed. > This is plumbed a couple levels deep. > > Is there some way you see this being handled better? Not really... looks like we're doing what we can at the moment then, good enough :) thanks, -serge