From: Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>
To: Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Linux X25 <linux-x25@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: lapb: Add locking to the lapb module
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:54:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJht_EMYEvcsOn6QGxGFBeR288ep+vJNxJVan48R8mEoVaVpUg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fb2a40bf347997416cd38454d1b194a@dev.tdt.de>
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:34 AM Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de> wrote:
>
> > 4. In lapb_device_event, replace the "lapb_disconnect_request" call
> > with
> > the content of "lapb_disconnect_request", to avoid trying to hold the
> > lock twice. When I do this, I removed "lapb_start_t1timer" because I
> > don't think it's necessary to start the timer when "NETDEV_GOING_DOWN".
>
> I don't like the code redundancy this creates. Maybe you should move the
> actual functionality from lapb_disconnect_request() to a
> __lapb_disconnect_request(), and in lapb_disconnect_request() call this
> function including locking around it and also in lapb_device_event
> (without locking).
>
> Calling lapb_start_t1timer() on a "NETDEV_GOING_DOWN" event does not
> hurt and is correct from a protocol flow point of view after sending
> the DISC.
Thanks! I created a new __lapb_disconnect_request function and the
code indeed looked cleaner. I'll send a new version.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-19 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-17 22:47 [PATCH net v2] net: lapb: Add locking to the lapb module Xie He
2021-01-19 11:34 ` Martin Schiller
2021-01-19 13:54 ` Xie He [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJht_EMYEvcsOn6QGxGFBeR288ep+vJNxJVan48R8mEoVaVpUg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=xie.he.0141@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-x25@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ms@dev.tdt.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).