On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 12:38:54 -0800 Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > +static void bareudp_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
> > +{
> > + struct bareudp_dev *bareudp = netdev_priv(dev);
> > +
> > + list_del(&bareudp->next);
> > + unregister_netdevice_queue(dev, head);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int bareudp_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> > struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[],
> > struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > {
> > struct bareudp_conf conf;
> > + LIST_HEAD(list_kill);
> > int err;
> >
> > err = bareudp2info(data, &conf, extack);
> > @@ -662,17 +671,14 @@ static int bareudp_newlink(struct net *net, struct
> > net_device *dev,
> >
> > err = bareudp_link_config(dev, tb);
> > if (err)
> > - return err;
> > + goto err_unconfig;
> >
> > return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static void bareudp_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
> > -{
> > - struct bareudp_dev *bareudp = netdev_priv(dev);
> >
> > - list_del(&bareudp->next);
> > - unregister_netdevice_queue(dev, head);
> > +err_unconfig:
> > + bareudp_dellink(dev, &list_kill);
> > + unregister_netdevice_many(&list_kill);
>
> Why do we need unregister_netdevice_many() here? I think
> bareudp_dellink(dev, NULL) is sufficient as we always have
> one instance to unregister?
>
> (For the same reason, bareudp_dev_create() does not need it
> either.)
Ack, I'm following how bareudp_dev_create() is written.
I can follow up in net-next and change both, sounds good?
