Hello, On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2011 23:12:27 Julian Anastasov wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > > > > Actually I forgot to tell there is a need for a > > > ip_vs_service_cleanup() due to above. > > > Do you see any drawbacks with it ? > > > > May be ip_vs_service_cleanup() should call only > > ip_vs_flush(), under __ip_vs_mutex. > > Hmm, > I'm not sure if the IP_VS_WAIT_WHILE() in ip_vs_flush is a good idea in this case... > That was why I wrote ip_vs_service_cleanup() IP_VS_WAIT_WHILE should be called because some schedulers do not use locks for ->schedule, eg. WLC. They rely on svc->usecnt reference to hold the virtual service. Nothing changes now with netns. It is currently the only way to modify or delete virtual service or scheduler. Of course, __ip_vs_svc_lock is now global but we do not have a choice. > > _cleanup_net. Now there are many register_pernet_subsys() > > calls and I'm not sure we preserve the needed order for > > cleanup. Are the ->exit methods called in reverse order? > > Yes You mean, only in the planned patch, yes? > > I don't see it in ops_exit_list() and we can not rely > > on such registration order. I think, ip_vs_init() should > > call global functions as now but __ip_vs_init() and > > __ip_vs_cleanup() should call the _net methods in right > > order. > > Exactly, > I have already done that in my next patch, and some other small changes :-) > For the ip_vs.ko there is only one register/unregister now, the schedulers still have their own. > Hopefully the patch is ready to morrow OK, very good. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- 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
