Re: [patch 1/2] qeth: new qeth device driver
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:55:41AM +0100, Frank Blaschka wrote:
Paul E. McKenney schrieb:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List of major changes and improvements:
no manipulation of the global ARP constructor
clean code split into core, layer 2 and layer 3 functionality
better exploitation of the ethtool interface
better representation of the various hardware capabilities
fix packet socket support (tcpdump), no fake_ll required
osasnmpd notification via udev events
coding style and beautification
One question below...
Signed-off-by: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[ . . . ]
+static void qeth_l3_vlan_rx_add_vid(struct net_device *dev, unsigned
short vid)
+{
+ struct net_device *vlandev;
+ struct qeth_card *card = (struct qeth_card *) dev-priv;
+ struct in_device *in_dev;
+
+ if (card-info.type == QETH_CARD_TYPE_IQD)
+ return;
+
+ vlandev = vlan_group_get_device(card-vlangrp, vid);
+ vlandev-neigh_setup = qeth_l3_neigh_setup;
+
+ in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(vlandev);
Is this really in an RCU read-side critical section? Or is this just
using common code?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Paul,
thanks for pointing at this. Using __in_dev_get_rcu without the rcu lock
is probably a bug at this place (right?).
It would be a bug -unless- you are holding the update-side lock.
Using in_dev_get/in_dev_put
would be more appropriate. Same for qeth_l3_free_vlan_addresses4(), here
we take the rcu read lock, but in_dev_get/in_dev_put would be the better
choice. What do you think?
Ummm... It depends. ;-)
Keeping in mind that I am not an expert on this part of the kernel, I
would guess that qeth_l3_free_vlan_addresses4() is not particularly
performance-sensitive, so I don't see any reason in_dev_get/in_dev_put
would be a problem. If it turns out that qeth_l3_free_vlan_addresses4()
is in fact performance-sensitive, then rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock()
would be a better choice.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [patch 1/2] qeth: new qeth device driver
please resend on top of the ctc driver update... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [patch 1/2] qeth: new qeth device driver
Paul E. McKenney schrieb:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List of major changes and improvements:
no manipulation of the global ARP constructor
clean code split into core, layer 2 and layer 3 functionality
better exploitation of the ethtool interface
better representation of the various hardware capabilities
fix packet socket support (tcpdump), no fake_ll required
osasnmpd notification via udev events
coding style and beautification
One question below...
Signed-off-by: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[ . . . ]
+static void qeth_l3_vlan_rx_add_vid(struct net_device *dev, unsigned short
vid)
+{
+struct net_device *vlandev;
+struct qeth_card *card = (struct qeth_card *) dev-priv;
+struct in_device *in_dev;
+
+if (card-info.type == QETH_CARD_TYPE_IQD)
+return;
+
+vlandev = vlan_group_get_device(card-vlangrp, vid);
+vlandev-neigh_setup = qeth_l3_neigh_setup;
+
+in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(vlandev);
Is this really in an RCU read-side critical section? Or is this just
using common code?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Paul,
thanks for pointing at this. Using __in_dev_get_rcu without the rcu lock
is probably a bug at this place (right?). Using in_dev_get/in_dev_put
would be more appropriate. Same for qeth_l3_free_vlan_addresses4(), here
we take the rcu read lock, but in_dev_get/in_dev_put would be the better
choice. What do you think?
Best regards,
Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [patch 1/2] qeth: new qeth device driver
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List of major changes and improvements:
no manipulation of the global ARP constructor
clean code split into core, layer 2 and layer 3 functionality
better exploitation of the ethtool interface
better representation of the various hardware capabilities
fix packet socket support (tcpdump), no fake_ll required
osasnmpd notification via udev events
coding style and beautification
One question below...
Signed-off-by: Frank Blaschka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[ . . . ]
+static void qeth_l3_vlan_rx_add_vid(struct net_device *dev, unsigned short
vid)
+{
+ struct net_device *vlandev;
+ struct qeth_card *card = (struct qeth_card *) dev-priv;
+ struct in_device *in_dev;
+
+ if (card-info.type == QETH_CARD_TYPE_IQD)
+ return;
+
+ vlandev = vlan_group_get_device(card-vlangrp, vid);
+ vlandev-neigh_setup = qeth_l3_neigh_setup;
+
+ in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(vlandev);
Is this really in an RCU read-side critical section? Or is this just
using common code?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
