On 08.06.2019 2:31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 20:31:43 +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> +static int xsk_notifier(struct notifier_block *this,
>> + unsigned long msg, void *ptr)
>> +{
>> + struct sock *sk;
>> + struct net_device *dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
>> + struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
>> + int i, unregister_count = 0;
>
> Please order the var declaration lines longest to shortest.
> (reverse christmas tree)
Hi.
I'm not a fan of mixing 'struct's with bare types in the declarations.
Moving the 'sk' to the third place will make a hole like this:
struct net_device *dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
struct sock *sk;
int i, unregister_count = 0;
Which is not looking good.
Moving to the 4th place:
struct net_device *dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
int i, unregister_count = 0;
struct sock *sk;
This variant doesn't look good for me because of mixing 'struct's with
bare integers.
Do you think I need to use one of above variants?
>
>> + mutex_lock(&net->xdp.lock);
>> + sk_for_each(sk, &net->xdp.list) {
>> + struct xdp_sock *xs = xdp_sk(sk);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&xs->mutex);
>> + switch (msg) {
>> + case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
>
> You should probably check the msg type earlier and not take all the
> locks and iterate for other types..
Yeah. I thought about it too. Will fix in the next version.
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
|