On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 01:12:34 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:25:05PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > This patch tries to restore the initial init and cleanup
> > sequences that was before name space patch.
[snip]
> perhaps enable or active would be names that fits better with the
> schemantics used. Using a bool might also make things more obvious.
I'll use enable
>
[snip]
>
> Can we just remove ip_vs_app_init() and ip_vs_app_cleanup() as
> they no longer do anything? Likewise with other init and cleanup
> functions below.
I will add a "final" patch that removes empty functions,
(They are nice to have during the review, to keep track of the order in different contexts)
>
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> > index 36cd5ea..f8d6702 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> > @@ -1251,30 +1251,30 @@ int __net_init __ip_vs_conn_init(struct net *net)
> > {
> > struct netns_ipvs *ipvs = net_ipvs(net);
> >
> > + EnterFunction(2);
> > atomic_set(&ipvs->conn_count, 0);
> >
> > proc_net_fops_create(net, "ip_vs_conn", 0, &ip_vs_conn_fops);
> > proc_net_fops_create(net, "ip_vs_conn_sync", 0, &ip_vs_conn_sync_fops);
> > + LeaveFunction(2);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Does adding these EnterFunction() and LeaveFunction() calls
> restore some previous behaviour? If not, I think they should at the very
> least be in a separate patch. Likewise for similar changes below.
>
I can remove them if you want, (but they are nice for debugging)
[snip]
>
> While I do prefer labels to be in column 0, putting those changes
> here is rather a lot of noise. Could you put them in a separate patch?
OK it will be patch no 1 later on
Regards
Hans
--
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
