From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kaber@trash.net,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb V2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:51:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100528055154.GB2823@psychotron.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527130822.02cb1661@nehalam>
Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:08:22PM CEST, shemminger@vyatta.com wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:08:24 +0200
>Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> changelog:
>> v1->v2
>> - writers are locked by rtnl_lock (removed unnecessary spinlock)
>> - using call_rcu in unregister
>> - nicer macvlan_port_create cleanup
>> - struct rx_hanler is made const in funtion parameters
>>
>> What this patch does is it removes two receive frame hooks (for bridge and for
>> macvlan) from __netif_receive_skb. These are replaced them with a general
>> list of rx_handlers which is iterated thru instead.
>>
>> Then a network driver (of virtual netdev like macvlan or bridge) can register
>> an rx_handler for needed net device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
>
>I wonder if we really need the chaining. What about allowing only one
>hook per device (and return -EBUSY)? That also gets rid of the allocation,
>and the extra overhead.
Hmm, that's a good question. I thought about it already. But I'm also wondering
if there is a possible scenario, when the chaining can be necessary. Also I do
not see any -significant- downside of having multiple handlers in a list, so I
would probably go this way now. Opinions?
>
>The handler hook, has to be export GPL, since we really don't want more
>network stack abuse by 3rd parties.
Noted, will be in the next patch version.
Jirka
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-28 5:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-27 18:08 [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb V2 Jiri Pirko
2010-05-27 20:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-05-28 5:51 ` Jiri Pirko [this message]
2010-05-28 6:12 ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb V3 Jiri Pirko
2010-05-28 7:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-28 7:33 ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb V4 Jiri Pirko
2010-06-01 15:28 ` net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb (v4) Stephen Hemminger
2010-06-01 15:41 ` Jiri Pirko
2010-06-01 16:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-06-02 7:02 ` Jiri Pirko
2010-06-01 16:13 ` Fischer, Anna
2010-06-02 6:50 ` Jiri Pirko
2010-06-02 7:24 ` net: " Jiri Pirko
2010-06-02 7:52 ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb V5 Jiri Pirko
2010-06-02 14:11 ` David Miller
2010-06-02 15:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-06-02 15:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-02 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-02 16:20 ` Fischer, Anna
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100528055154.GB2823@psychotron.redhat.com \
--to=jpirko@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).