Hi Nikolay,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> Let's take a step back for a moment and discuss the bridge unlock/lock sequences
> that come with this set. I'd really like to avoid those as they're a recipe
> for future problems. The only good way to achieve that currently is to keep
> the PRE_FLAGS call and do that in unsleepable context but move the FLAGS call
> after the flags have been changed (if they have changed obviously). That would
> make the code read much easier since we'll have all our lock/unlock sequences
> in the same code blocks and won't play games to get sleepable context.
> Please let's think and work in that direction, rather than having:
> + spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock);
> + if (err) {
> + netdev_err(p->dev, "%s\n", extack._msg);
> + return err;
> }
> +
>
> which immediately looks like a bug even though after some code checking we can
> verify it's ok. WDYT?
>
> I plan to get rid of most of the br->lock since it's been abused for a very long
> time because it's essentially STP lock, but people have started using it for other
> things and I plan to fix that when I get more time.
This won't make the sysfs codepath any nicer, will it?
