Hello,
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023, Dust Li wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 08:19:54PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > Changes look good to me, thanks! But checkpatch is reporting
> >for some cosmetic changes that you have to do in v3:
> >
> >scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict /tmp/file.patch
>
> Oh, sorry for that! I ignored the CHECKs checkpatch reported, my checkpatch
> shows:
>
>
> $./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict 0001-ipvs-make-ip_vs_svc_table-and-ip_vs_svc_fwm_table-pe.patch
> CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
> #69: FILE: include/net/ip_vs.h:40:
> +#define IP_VS_SVC_TAB_SIZE (1 << IP_VS_SVC_TAB_BITS)
>
> We just moved this line from ip_vs_ctl.c to ip_vs.h, so we ignored the
> BIT macro. Do you think we should change it using BIT macro ?
Yes, lets fix all these complains.
> CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
> #79: FILE: include/net/ip_vs.h:1051:
> + struct mutex service_mutex;
>
> I think we can add comment for it.
> But rethinking a bit on the service_mutex in ip_vs_est.c, I'm a
> wondering why we are using the service_mutex in estimation ? Is est_mutex
> enough for the protecting in ip_vs_est.c ?
Yes, the estimation kthreads are synchronized only
with reconfiguration: ip_vs_start_estimator() and ip_vs_stop_estimator()
are called under service_mutex. And the estimation data is already
per-net, there is no global data.
> CHECK: Logical continuations should be on the previous line
> #161: FILE: net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:410:
> && (svc->port == vport)
> + && (svc->protocol == protocol)) {
>
> This is just the removal of '(svc->ipvs == ipvs)' and kept it as it is.
> So haven't change according to checkpatch. If you prefer, I can modify
> it to make checkpatch happy.
Yes, lets move all '&&' in this 'if' block and also remove the
parens:
if (svc->af == af && ip_vs_addr_equal(af, &svc->addr, vaddr) &&
svc->port == vport && svc->protocol == protocol) {
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
