Re: [patch net-next v2 4/7] switchdev: introduce possibility to defer obj_add/del

[Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>]

On 10/12/2015 04:34 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 03:15 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>>
>> Similar to the attr usecase, the caller knows if he is holding RTNL and is
>> in atomic section. So let the called to decide the correct call variant.
>>
>> This allows drivers to sleep inside their ops and wait for hw to get the
>> operation status. Then the status is propagated into switchdev core.
>> This avoids silent errors in drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>>  include/net/switchdev.h   |   1 +
>>  net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  2 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
> [snip]
>> +
>> +struct switchdev_obj_work {
>> +	struct work_struct work;
>> +	struct net_device *dev;
>> +	struct switchdev_obj obj;
>> +	bool add; /* add of del */
> s/of/or/ ? :-)
> 
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void switchdev_port_obj_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> +	struct switchdev_obj_work *ow =
>> +			container_of(work, struct switchdev_obj_work, work);
>> +	bool rtnl_locked = rtnl_is_locked();
>> +	int err;
>> +
>> +	if (!rtnl_locked)
>> +		rtnl_lock();
>> +	if (ow->add)
>> +		err = switchdev_port_obj_add_now(ow->dev, &ow->obj);
>> +	else
>> +		err = switchdev_port_obj_del_now(ow->dev, &ow->obj);
>> +	if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> +		netdev_err(ow->dev, "failed (err=%d) to %s object (id=%d)\n",
>> +			   err, ow->add ? "add" : "del", ow->obj.id);
>> +	if (!rtnl_locked)
>> +		rtnl_unlock();
>> +
>> +	dev_put(ow->dev);
>> +	kfree(ow);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int switchdev_port_obj_work_schedule(struct net_device *dev,
>> +					    const struct switchdev_obj *obj,
>> +					    bool add)
>> +{
>> +	struct switchdev_obj_work *ow;
>> +
>> +	ow = kmalloc(sizeof(*ow), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> +	if (!ow)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	INIT_WORK(&ow->work, switchdev_port_obj_work);
>> +
> This can be called without rtnl, what stops the device from disappearing
> between the above and the hold below ?
> 
Nevermind this question, got it.

Cheers,
 Nik