From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Flavio Leitner Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/3] team: remove synchronize_rcu() called during queue override change Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:18:56 -0300 Message-ID: <20130611131856.GA11888@obelix.rh> References: <1370878945-9718-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1370878945-9718-2-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <20130611004845.GF11894@obelix.rh> <20130611054046.GA1533@minipsycho.orion> <20130611080107.GA1916@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25438 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755193Ab3FKNTC (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:19:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130611080107.GA1916@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:01:07AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:40:46AM CEST, jiri@resnulli.us wrote: > >Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:48:45AM CEST, fbl@redhat.com wrote: > >>On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:42:23PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>> This patch removes synchronize_rcu() from function > >>> __team_queue_override_port_del(). That can be done because it is ok to > >>> do list_del_rcu() and list_add_tail_rcu() on the same list_head member > >>> without calling synchronize_rcu() in between. A bit of refactoring > >>> needed to be done because INIT_LIST_HEAD needed to be removed (to not > >>> kill the forward pointer) as well. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko > >>> --- > >>> drivers/net/team/team.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > >>> > >>[...] > >> > >>> @@ -1278,17 +1310,16 @@ static int team_queue_id_option_set(struct team *team, > >>> struct team_gsetter_ctx *ctx) > >>> { > >>> struct team_port *port = ctx->info->port; > >>> + u16 new_queue_id = ctx->data.u32_val; > >>> > >>> - if (port->queue_id == ctx->data.u32_val) > >>> + if (port->queue_id == new_queue_id) > >> > >>Since you're passing new_queue_id to port->queue_id and > >>in the other parts you test against !port->queue_id to see > >>if it's enable or not, that means queue 0 can't be used. > >> > >>Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't be better to > >>initialize with -1 and allow 0 to be used as well? > > > >0 means default queue. It's done the same was as in bonding code. > > + this patch does not change original behaviour... Jiri explained this bits off list to me, so Acked-by: Flavio Leitner Thanks, -- fbl