On 1/26/21 6:23 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> @@ -889,22 +882,29 @@ static void nsim_nexthop_destroy(struct nsim_nexthop
> *nexthop)
> static int nsim_nexthop_account(struct nsim_fib_data *data, u64 occ,
> bool add, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> {
> - int err = 0;
> + int i, err = 0;
>
> if (add) {
> - if (data->nexthops.num + occ <= data->nexthops.max) {
> - data->nexthops.num += occ;
> - } else {
> - err = -ENOSPC;
> - NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Exceeded number of
> supported nexthops");
> - }
> + for (i = 0; i < occ; i++)
> + if (!atomic64_add_unless(&data->nexthops.num, 1,
> + data->nexthops.max)) {
seems like this can be
if (!atomic64_add_unless(&data->nexthops.num, occ,
data->nexthops.max)) {
and then the err_num_decrease is not needed
> + err = -ENOSPC;
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Exceeded number of
> supported nexthops");
> + goto err_num_decrease;
> + }
> } else {
> - if (WARN_ON(occ > data->nexthops.num))
> + if (WARN_ON(occ > atomic64_read(&data->nexthops.num)))
> return -EINVAL;
> - data->nexthops.num -= occ;
> + atomic64_sub(occ, &data->nexthops.num);
> }
>
> return err;
> +
> +err_num_decrease:
> + for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
> + atomic64_dec(&data->nexthops.num);
and if this path is really needed, why not atomic64_sub here?
> + return err;
> +
> }
>
> static int nsim_nexthop_add(struct nsim_fib_data *data,
>
