From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20131027.163712.1324471504006808112.davem@davemloft.net> References: <52688F33.30904@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fubar@us.ibm.com, andy@greyhouse.net, nikolay@redhat.com, vfalico@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: dingtianhong@huawei.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:53806 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753521Ab3J0UhR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:37:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <52688F33.30904@huawei.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ding Tianhong 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.