From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [net-next,1/3] bonding: fix vlan 0 addition and removal Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:10:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20130806091023.GN22756@redhat.com> References: <1375709304-16778-2-git-send-email-nikolay@redhat.com> <20130805215126.GB3859@redhat.com> <5200B63A.5070900@redhat.com> <20130806085941.GM22756@redhat.com> <5200BCD2.4090105@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fubar@us.ibm.com, andy@greyhouse.net, davem@davemloft.net, kaber@trash.net To: Nikolay Aleksandrov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9939 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754864Ab3HFJLT (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 05:11:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5200BCD2.4090105@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:07:30AM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >On 08/06/2013 10:59 AM, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: ...snip... >>> Just 1 more note, you can't trust nr_vlan_devs under RCU. >> >> Yes, you're right, however we actually don't care anyway if we race with >> (un)register_vlan_dev() - we'll end up either in using the (un)registered >> vlan or not, and in both cases it's ok. So I don't see a real problem here, >> tbh, though I'll look into this also. >You might have stale value in the cache, the implications don't stop there. >I'd like to avoid inconsistent behaviour if there's a way. >A solution that can be relied on and works always would be much more >preferable. Sure :). I currently don't see it, except of using quite offensive locking strategies, but I'll try to figure something out.