From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:10:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20131027211048.GA557@redhat.com> References: <52688F33.30904@huawei.com> <20131027.163712.1324471504006808112.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: dingtianhong@huawei.com, fubar@us.ibm.com, andy@greyhouse.net, nikolay@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64034 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753229Ab3J0VNL (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:13:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131027.163712.1324471504006808112.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 04:37:12PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >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. 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!