Hi, I overlook this email, sorry. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:23:54PM +0530, Sriharsha Basavapatna wrote: [...] > > @@ -2101,7 +2073,8 @@ void bnxt_shutdown_tc(struct bnxt *bp) > > if (!bnxt_tc_flower_enabled(bp)) > > return; > > > > - unregister_netdevice_notifier(&bp->tc_netdev_nb); > > + flow_indr_dev_unregister(bnxt_tc_setup_indr_cb, bp, > > + bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block_cb); > > Why does the driver need to provide the "cb" again during unregister, > since both "cb" and "cb_priv" are already provided during register() ? > This interface could be simplified/improved if > flow_indr_dev_register() returns an opaque handle to the object it > creates (struct flow_indr_dev *) ? Probably, at the expense to storing this in the netdev private area. > The driver should just pass this > handle during unregistration. Also, why do we need the extra (3rd) > argument (flow_setup_cb_t / bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block_cb) during unreg > ? It is handled internally by the driver as a part of FLOW_BLOCK_BIND > / UNBIND ? flow_indr_dev_unregister() needs bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block_cb to identify what indirect flow_blocks need to be cleaned up before this representor is gone.
