From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Schillstrom Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] IPVS: init and cleanup restructuring. Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:00:09 +0200 Message-ID: <201104201400.10175.hans@schillstrom.com> References: <1303226705-29178-1-git-send-email-hans@schillstrom.com> <1303226705-29178-3-git-send-email-hans@schillstrom.com> <20110419231234.GE6418@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ja@ssi.bg, ebiederm@xmission.com, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com To: Simon Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110419231234.GE6418@verge.net.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 01:12:34 Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:25:05PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > This patch tries to restore the initial init and cleanup > > sequences that was before name space patch. [snip] > perhaps enable or active would be names that fits better with the > schemantics used. Using a bool might also make things more obvious. I'll use enable > [snip] > > Can we just remove ip_vs_app_init() and ip_vs_app_cleanup() as > they no longer do anything? Likewise with other init and cleanup > functions below. I will add a "final" patch that removes empty functions, (They are nice to have during the review, to keep track of the order in different contexts) > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c > > index 36cd5ea..f8d6702 100644 > > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c > > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c > > @@ -1251,30 +1251,30 @@ int __net_init __ip_vs_conn_init(struct net *net) > > { > > struct netns_ipvs *ipvs = net_ipvs(net); > > > > + EnterFunction(2); > > atomic_set(&ipvs->conn_count, 0); > > > > proc_net_fops_create(net, "ip_vs_conn", 0, &ip_vs_conn_fops); > > proc_net_fops_create(net, "ip_vs_conn_sync", 0, &ip_vs_conn_sync_fops); > > + LeaveFunction(2); > > return 0; > > } > > Does adding these EnterFunction() and LeaveFunction() calls > restore some previous behaviour? If not, I think they should at the very > least be in a separate patch. Likewise for similar changes below. > I can remove them if you want, (but they are nice for debugging) [snip] > > While I do prefer labels to be in column 0, putting those changes > here is rather a lot of noise. Could you put them in a separate patch? OK it will be patch no 1 later on Regards Hans