From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/4] switchdev: add fwd_mark generator helper Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:46:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20150615054638.GB2179@nanopsycho.orion> References: <1434218670-43821-1-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> <1434218670-43821-3-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> <20150614065601.GB2105@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Netdev , "simon.horman@netronome.com" , Roopa Prabhu , "Arad, Ronen" , "Fastabend, John R" , "andrew@lunn.ch" , Florian Fainelli , Guenter Roeck , davidch , "stephen@networkplumber.org" To: Scott Feldman Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:37140 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751AbbFOFql (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 01:46:41 -0400 Received: by wifx6 with SMTP id x6so65887625wif.0 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 07:50:13PM CEST, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote: >On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 08:04:28PM CEST, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote: >>>From: Scott Feldman >>> >>>skb->fwd_mark and dev->fwd_mark are 32-bit and should be unique for device >>>and maybe even unique for a sub-set of ports within device, so add >>>switchdev helper function to generate unique marks based on driver-supplied >>>key. Typically, the driver would use device switch ID for key, and maybe >>>additional fields in key for grouped ports such as bridge ifindex. The key >>>can be of arbitrary length. >>> >>>The generator uses a global hash table to store fwd_marks hashed by key. >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman > > > >>>+u32 switchdev_mark_get(void *key, size_t key_len) >>>+{ >>>+ struct switchdev_mark_ht_entry { >>>+ struct hlist_node entry; >>>+ void *key; >>>+ size_t key_len; >>>+ u32 key_crc32; >>>+ u32 mark; >>>+ } *entry; >>>+ u32 key_crc32 = crc32(~0, key, key_len); >>>+ u32 mark = 0; >>>+ unsigned long flags; >>>+ >>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&switchdev_mark_lock, flags); >> >> I fail to see why _irqsave variant is needed here. > >I don't know what context caller is in, so using most conservative >spinlock. Is there a better way? I don't see why would someone call this from irq.