On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:56:48PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 08:43:54AM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 08:35:48PM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > here come a couple of fixes and cleanups for IPVS. Worth mentioning are the two
> > > > > possible deadlock fixes. One introduced by my last sync daemon work, which
> > > > > hasn't hit any stable kernel yet. The other one is in the estimator code and
> > > > > goes back to at leat since we started working with git for the kernel. The
> > > > > latter I think qualifies for -stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've pushed the changes (8123b42..2e45552) based on davem's net tree here
> > > > >
> > > > > git://git.stealer.net/linux-2.6.git stealer/ipvs/for-davem
> > > >
> > > > I've included the register_ip_vs_protocol() annotation. Changes are now
> > > > 8123b42..7ead17b. Diffstat has changed slightly, but is probably not worth
> > > > posting again.
> > >
> > > Hi Sven,
> > >
> > > all these changes seem fine to me.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > With regards to ip_vs_zero_stats(), it uses
> > >
> > > memset(stats, 0, (char *)&stats->lock - (char *)stats);
> > >
> > > to clear stats and then calls ip_vs_zero_estimator(), which uses
> > >
> > > est->last_conns = 0;
> > > est->last_inpkts = 0;
> > > ...
> > >
> > > to clear stats->est.
> > >
> > > I wonder if it would be cleaner to either clear
> > > stats->... directly in ip_vs_zero_stats(), or use
> > > memset in ip_vs_zero_estimator()?
> >
> > Yeah, I wondered about the same. memset is probably simpler, but direct
> > assignment makes it more obvious what is changed. Thinking about it, I'd
> > prefer direct assignment, when not setting a complete structure to zero
> > and there are not more than a handful lines needed to do it with direct
> > assignment. But I'm fine with either way here. If we prefer the memset
> > way, we should add a comment to both structures, saying that nobody should
> > add anything non-statistic before the member we use to get the size.
>
> To be honest I prefer direct assignment too. I think it is less fragile
> as the structures can be re-ordered without effecting how clear works.
> I'll post a (trivial) patch shortly.
And here it is...
--------------------------------------------------
ipvs: Explictly clear ip_vs_status members
In order to align the coding styles of ip_vs_zero_stats() and
its child-function ip_vs_zero_estimator(), clear ip_vs_status
members explicitlty rather than doing a limited memset().
This was chosen over modifying ip_vs_zero_estimator() to use
memset() as it is more robust against changes in members
in the relevant structures. memset() would be prefered if
all members of the structure were to be cleared.
Cc: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Index: net-2.6/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c
===================================================================
--- net-2.6.orig/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c 2008-08-11 17:15:04.000000000 +1000
+++ net-2.6/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c 2008-08-11 17:15:07.000000000 +1000
@@ -683,8 +683,21 @@ static void
ip_vs_zero_stats(struct ip_vs_stats *stats)
{
spin_lock_bh(&stats->lock);
- memset(stats, 0, (char *)&stats->lock - (char *)stats);
+
+ stats->conns = 0;
+ stats->inpkts = 0;
+ stats->outpkts = 0;
+ stats->inbytes = 0;
+ stats->outbytes = 0;
+
+ stats->cps = 0;
+ stats->inpps = 0;
+ stats->outpps = 0;
+ stats->inbps = 0;
+ stats->outbps = 0;
+
ip_vs_zero_estimator(stats);
+
spin_unlock_bh(&stats->lock);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
