On 24.11.2016 09:47, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> On 23.11.2016 20:53, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Hmm, I think you need to read the sequence counter under rtnl_l
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 23.11.2016 20:53, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> Hmm, I think you need to read the sequence counter under rtnl_lock to
> >> have an ordering with the rest o
On 23.11.2016 20:53, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> Hmm, I think you need to read the sequence counter under rtnl_lock to
>> have an ordering with the rest of the updates to the RCU trie. Otherwise
>> you don't know if the fib trie has
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hmm, I think you need to read the sequence counter under rtnl_lock to
> have an ordering with the rest of the updates to the RCU trie. Otherwise
> you don't know if the fib trie has the correct view regarding to the
> incoming
On 23.11.2016 15:34, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel
>
> Commit b90eb7549499 ("fib: introduce FIB notification infrastructure")
> introduced a new notification chain to notify listeners (f.e., switchdev
> drivers) about addition and deletion of routes.
>
> However, upon registration to th
From: Ido Schimmel
Commit b90eb7549499 ("fib: introduce FIB notification infrastructure")
introduced a new notification chain to notify listeners (f.e., switchdev
drivers) about addition and deletion of routes.
However, upon registration to the chain the FIB tables can already be
populated, whic
