LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipvs: make ip_vs_svc_table and ip_vs_svc_fwm_tab

To: Dust Li <dust.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipvs: make ip_vs_svc_table and ip_vs_svc_fwm_table per netns
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jiejian Wu <jiejian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 06:46:22 +0300 (EEST)
        Hello,

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023, Dust Li wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 08:19:54PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> >     Changes look good to me, thanks! But checkpatch is reporting
> >for some cosmetic changes that you have to do in v3:
> >
> >scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict /tmp/file.patch
> 
> Oh, sorry for that! I ignored the CHECKs checkpatch reported, my checkpatch
> shows:
> 
> 
>    $./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict 
> 0001-ipvs-make-ip_vs_svc_table-and-ip_vs_svc_fwm_table-pe.patch
>    CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
>    #69: FILE: include/net/ip_vs.h:40:
>    +#define IP_VS_SVC_TAB_SIZE (1 << IP_VS_SVC_TAB_BITS)
> 
> We just moved this line from ip_vs_ctl.c to ip_vs.h, so we ignored the
> BIT macro. Do you think we should change it using BIT macro ?

        Yes, lets fix all these complains.

>    CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
>    #79: FILE: include/net/ip_vs.h:1051:
>    +       struct mutex service_mutex;
> 
> I think we can add comment for it.
> But rethinking a bit on the service_mutex in ip_vs_est.c, I'm a
> wondering why we are using the service_mutex in estimation ? Is est_mutex
> enough for the protecting in ip_vs_est.c ?

        Yes, the estimation kthreads are synchronized only
with reconfiguration: ip_vs_start_estimator() and ip_vs_stop_estimator()
are called under service_mutex. And the estimation data is already 
per-net, there is no global data.

>    CHECK: Logical continuations should be on the previous line
>    #161: FILE: net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:410:
>                        && (svc->port == vport)
>    +                   && (svc->protocol == protocol)) {
> 
> This is just the removal of '(svc->ipvs == ipvs)' and kept it as it is.
> So haven't change according to checkpatch. If you prefer, I can modify
> it to make checkpatch happy.

        Yes, lets move all '&&' in this 'if' block and also remove the 
parens:

        if (svc->af == af && ip_vs_addr_equal(af, &svc->addr, vaddr) &&
            svc->port == vport && svc->protocol == protocol) {

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>