On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:18:16PM +0800, wenxu wrote:
>
> 在 2020/6/16 22:34, Simon Horman 写道:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20:46PM +0800, wenxu wrote:
> >> 在 2020/6/16 18:51, Simon Horman 写道:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19:38AM +0800, we...@ucloud.cn wrote:
> >>>> From: wenxu <we...@ucloud.cn>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the function __flow_block_indr_cleanup, The match stataments
> >>>> this->cb_priv == cb_priv is always false, the flow_block_cb->cb_priv
> >>>> is totally different data with the flow_indr_dev->cb_priv.
> >>>>
> >>>> Store the representor cb_priv to the flow_block_cb->indr.cb_priv in
> >>>> the driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 1fac52da5942 ("net: flow_offload: consolidate indirect flow_block
> >>>> infrastructure")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: wenxu <we...@ucloud.cn>
> >>> Hi Wenxu,
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if this can be resolved by using the cb_ident field of struct
> >>> flow_block_cb.
> >>>
> >>> I observe that mlx5e_rep_indr_setup_block() seems to be the only call-site
> >>> where the value of the cb_ident parameter of flow_block_cb_alloc() is
> >>> per-block rather than per-device. So part of my proposal is to change
> >>> that.
> >> I check all the xxdriver_indr_setup_block. It seems all the cb_ident
> >> parameter of
> >>
> >> flow_block_cb_alloc is per-block. Both in the
> >> nfp_flower_setup_indr_tc_block
> >>
> >> and bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block.
> >>
> >>
> >> nfp_flower_setup_indr_tc_block:
> >>
> >> struct nfp_flower_indr_block_cb_priv *cb_priv;
> >>
> >> block_cb = flow_block_cb_alloc(nfp_flower_setup_indr_block_cb,
> >> cb_priv, cb_priv,
> >>
> >> nfp_flower_setup_indr_tc_release);
> >>
> >>
> >> bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block:
> >>
> >> struct bnxt_flower_indr_block_cb_priv *cb_priv;
> >>
> >> block_cb = flow_block_cb_alloc(bnxt_tc_setup_indr_block_cb,
> >> cb_priv, cb_priv,
> >> bnxt_tc_setup_indr_rel);
> >>
> >>
> >> And the function flow_block_cb_is_busy called in most place. Pass the
> >>
> >> parameter as cb_priv but not cb_indent .
> > Thanks, I see that now. But I still think it would be useful to understand
> > the purpose of cb_ident. It feels like it would lead to a clean solution
> > to the problem you have highlighted.
>
> I think The cb_ident means identify. It is used to identify the each flow
> block cb.
>
> In the both flow_block_cb_is_busy and flow_block_cb_lookup function check
>
> the block_cb->cb_ident == cb_ident.
Thanks, I think that I now see what you mean about the different scope of
cb_ident and your proposal to allow cleanup by flow_indr_dev_unregister().
I do, however, still wonder if there is a nicer way than reaching into
the structure and manually setting block_cb->indr.cb_priv
at each call-site.
Perhaps a variant of flow_block_cb_alloc() for indirect blocks
would be nicer?
