On 5/30/2018 7:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" wrote:
On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" wrote:
> On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
> > Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> >> index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" wrote:
> On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
> > Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> >> index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d
Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:37:44AM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
>Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
>
>
>> +spin_lock(_lock);
>
>Since register is not in fast path, this should be a mutex?
I don't get it. Why would you prefer
On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++
On 5/25/2018 3:37 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
+ spin_lock(_lock);
Since register is not in fast path, this should be a mutex?
This is Jiri's comment which made me to switch to spinlock from
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> + spin_lock(_lock);
Since register is not in fast path, this should be a mutex?
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
> +{
> + struct net_device *failover_dev;
> +