Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding

[Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 04:37:12PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:08:35 +0800
>
>> The slave list will add and del by bond_master_upper_dev_link() and bond_upper_dev_unlink(),
>> which will call call_netdevice_notifiers(), even it is safe to call it in write bond lock now,
>> but we can't sure that whether it is safe later, because other drivers may deal NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER
>> in sleep way, so I didn't admit move the bond_upper_dev_unlink() in write bond lock.
>>
>> now the bond_for_each_slave only protect by rtnl_lock(), maybe use bond_for_each_slave_rcu is a good
>> way to protect slave list for bond, but as a system slow path, it is no need to transform bond_for_each_slave()
>> to bond_for_each_slave_rcu() in slow path, so in the patchset, I will remove the unused read bond lock
>> for monitor function, maybe it is a better way, I will wait to accept any relay for it.
>>
>> Thanks for the Veaceslav Falico opinion.
>>
>> v2: add and modify commit for patchset and patch, it will be the first step for the whole patchset.
>
>Series applied, thanks.
David,

Either I've missed something, or I don't understand something. I've
explicitly Nacked it - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg254998.html .

All the changelogs for the patches are *the same*, and, while they try to
explain what's done overall, the don't explain what's done per-patch, why
it's done and why is it safe to move those locks around.

And, while the code changes are small, they touch really sensitive stuff -
locking, and not only bond->lock, but also rtnl. Without proper changelogs
it's really hard to review them per-patch, that's why I've asked for them
several times.

Anyway, care to explain what did I miss?

Thank you!