On 10.06.2019 11:05, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> 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;
I've sent v3 with this variant and with moved msg check to the top level.
>
> 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.
>
|