Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:16:26PM CEST, pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:31:54AM CEST, pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:49:09PM CEST, pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >+static LIST_HEAD(tcf_block_cb_list); >> >> >> >> I still don't like the global list. Have to go throught the code more >> >> carefully, but why you can't pass the priv/ctx from tc/netfilter. From >> >> tc it would be tcf_block as it is now, from netfilter something else. >> > >> >This tcf_block_cb_list should go away at some point, once drivers know >> >how to deal with multiple subsystems using the setup block >> >infrastructure. As I said in my previous email, only one can set up >> >the block at this stage, the ones coming later will hit busy. >> >> The driver should know if it can bind or is busy. Also, the bind cmd >> should contain type of binder (tc/nft/whatever) or perhaps rather binder >> priority (according to the hook order in rx/tx). > >OK, so I see two possible paths then: > >#1 Add global list and allow one single subsystem to bind by now. Then > later, in a follow up patchset. Add binder type and priority once > there is a driver that can handle the three subsystems, remove > this global list and each driver deals/knows what to do from the > binder path. > >#2 Remove the global list now, each driver maintains a list of flow blocks > internally, allow one single flow block by now. This will need a bit more > code, since there will be code in the driver to maintain the list of > existing flow blocks, per driver, instead of global. So it will be > a per-driver global local to check if there is a flow block with > this [ cb, cb_ident ] already in place. > >#1 is almost ready - it's this batch :-) - then #2 may need more code - >this batch is slightly large. > >I understand though that path #2 may make it easier for the first >driver client allowing for the three subsystems to bind. > >Let me know what path your prefer. I definitelly prefer #2. Thanks! > >Thanks for reviewing.
