On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>>> My guess is that if the issue from the earlier patch about overlapping
>>>> collect_md tunnels is fixed then that might allow us to simplify
>>>> things a little further, since for those tunnels we can assume there
>>>> is a 1:1 mapping between collect_md tunnels and sockets.
>>>
>>> I dont see how it would be different. Can you elaborate on this ?
>>
>> Mostly just conceptually simpler. Right now it looks like we are doing
>> some kind of refcounting between devices and tunnels in
>> geneve_open/stop (I know it's not really but it appears like that in
>> some ways.) We could just directly assign collect_md in geneve_open()
>> and do nothing at all in geneve_stop().
>
> If you look at next patch, I have changed geneve_open and stop
> further. The change is geneve_open adds tunnel to hash table so that
> only device which are open are in hash table. Since geneve_open and
> stop is common for both type of tunnel I do not think there can be any
> changes even after avoiding overlapping tunnel types in given socket.
I guess I'm not sure why with the later changes it would be
incompatible. All I'm talking about is something pretty small:
geneve_open:
if (geneve->collect_md)
gs->collect_md = true;
to
gs->collect_md = geneve->collect_md;
geneve_close:
remove
if (geneve->collect_md)
gs->collect_md = false;
since the socket is about to be freed anyways.
It's not very different in practice but it looks less like refcounting
and more like a 1:1 mapping.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
