- 26 Sep, 2013 28 commits
-
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently, we can have only one master upper neighbour, so it would be useful to create a symlink to it in the sysfs device directory, the way that bonding now does it, for every device. Lower devices from bridge/team/etc will automagically get it, so we could rely on it. Also, remove the same functionality from bonding. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
On netdev unregister we're removing also all of its sysfs-associated stuff, including the sysfs symlinks that are controlled by netdev neighbour code. Also, it's a subtle race condition - cause we can still access it after unregistering. Move the unlinking right before the unregistering to fix both. CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Otherwise users might access it without being fully registered, as per sysfs - it only inits in register_netdevice(), so is unusable till it is called. CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
And all the initialization. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Use the new function __bond_next_slave(). CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Add a new function, __bond_next_slave(), which uses neighbours to find the next slave after the slave provided. It will be further used to gradually go start using neighbour netdev_adjacent infrastructure instead of bonding's own lists. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
We don't really need it, and it's really hard to RCUify the list->prev. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
For that, use netdev_adjacent_get_private(list_head) on bond's lower neighbour list members. Also, add a small macro - bond_slave_list(bond), which returns the bond list via neighbour list. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
It will be useful to get first/last element. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
The same way as it was used for its own slave_list. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently we verify if we have slaves by checking if bond->slave_list is empty. Create a define bond_has_slaves() and use it, a bit more readable and easier to change in the future. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
It has no users, so we can remove it. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently it uses the hard-to-rcuify bond_for_each_slave_from(), and also it doesn't check every slave for disrepencies between the actual IS_UP(slave) and the slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP, but only till we find the next suitable slave. Fix this by using bond_for_each_slave() and storing the first good slave in *before till we find the current_arp_slave, after that we store the first good slave in new_slave. If new_slave is empty - use the slave stored in before, and if it's also empty - then we didn't find any suitable slave. Also, in the meanwhile, check for each slave status. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
bond_find_best_slave() does not have to be balanced - i.e. return the slave that is *after* some other slave, but rather return the best slave that suits, except of bond->primary_slave - in which case we just return it if it's suitable. After that we just look through all the slaves and return either first up slave or the slave whose link came back earliest. We also don't care about curr_active_slave lock cause we use it in bond_should_change_active() only and there we take it right away - i.e. it won't go away. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently, we're using bond_for_each_slave_from(), which is really hard to implement under RCU and/or neighbour list. Remove it and use bond_for_each_slave() instead, taking care of the last used slave. Also, rename next_rx_slave to rx_slave and store the current (last) rx_slave. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently, there are two loops - first we find the first slave in an aggregator after the xmit_hash_policy() returned number, and after that we loop from that slave, over bonding head, and till that slave to find any suitable slave to send the packet through. Replace it by just one bond_for_each_slave() loop, which first loops through the requested number of slaves, saving the first suitable one, and after that we've hit the requested number of slaves to skip - search for any up slave to send the packet through. If we don't find such kind of slave - then just send the packet through the first suitable slave found. Logic remains unchainged, and we skip two loops. Also, refactor it a bit for readability. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
We're safe agains removal there, cause we use neighbours primitives. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
It needs a list_head *iter, so add it wherever needed. Use both non-rcu and rcu variants. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> CC: Dimitris Michailidis <dm@chelsio.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
We only use it in rollback scenarios and can easily use the standart bond_for_each_dev() instead. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Add a possibility to iterate through netdev_adjacent's private, currently only for lower neighbours. Add both RCU and RTNL/other locking variants of iterators, and make the non-rcu variant to be safe from removal. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
It should be used under rtnl/bonding lock, so use the non-RCU version. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Use the new provided function when attaching the lower slave to populate its ->private with struct slave *new_slave. Also, move it to the end to be able to 'find' it only after it was completely initialized, and deinitialize in the first place on release. CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently, even though we can access any linked device, we can't attach anything to it, which is vital to properly manage them. To fix this, add a new void *private to netdev_adjacent and functions setting/getting it (per link), so that we can save, per example, bonding's slave structures there, per slave device. netdev_master_upper_dev_link_private(dev, upper_dev, private) links dev to upper dev and populates the neighbour link only with private. netdev_lower_dev_get_private{,_rcu}() returns the private, if found. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently we have only the RTNL flavour, however we can traverse it while holding only RCU, so add the RCU search. Add an RCU variant that uses list_head * as an argument, so that it can be universally used afterwards. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently, we distinguish neighbours (first-level linked devices) from non-neighbours by the neighbour bool in the netdev_adjacent. This could be quite time-consuming in case we would like to traverse *only* through neighbours - cause we'd have to traverse through all devices and check for this flag, and in a (quite common) scenario where we have lots of vlans on top of bridge, which is on top of a bond - the bonding would have to go through all those vlans to get its upper neighbour linked devices. This situation is really unpleasant, cause there are already a lot of cases when a device with slaves needs to go through them in hot path. To fix this, introduce a new upper/lower device lists structure - adj_list, which contains only the neighbours. It works always in pair with the all_adj_list structure (renamed from upper/lower_dev_list), i.e. both of them contain the same links, only that all_adj_list contains also non-neighbour device links. It's really a small change visible, currently, only for __netdev_adjacent_dev_insert/remove(), and doesn't change the main linked logic at all. Also, add some comments a fix a name collision in netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu() and rework the naming by the following rules: netdev_(all_)(upper|lower)_* If "all_" is present, then we work with the whole list of upper/lower devices, otherwise - only with direct neighbours. Uninline functions - to get better stack traces. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Veaceslav Falico authored
Currently we make use of bool upper when we want to specify if we want to work with upper/lower list. It's, however, harder to read, debug and occupies a lot more code. Fix this by just passing the correct upper/lower_dev_list list_head pointer instead of bool upper, and work internally with it. CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Hannes Frederic Sowa authored
Currently we always use the first member of the arp_queue to determine the sender ip address of the arp packet (or in case of IPv6 - source address of the ndisc packet). This skb is fixed as long as the queue is not drained by a complete purge because of a timeout or by a successful response. If the first packet enqueued on the arp_queue is from a local application with a manually set source address and the to be discovered system does some kind of uRPF checks on the source address in the arp packet the resolving process hangs until a timeout and restarts. This hurts communication with the participating network node. This could be mitigated a bit if we use the latest enqueued skb's source address for the resolving process, which is not as static as the arp_queue's head. This change of the source address could result in better recovery of a failed solicitation. Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> Reviewed-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/trivial-modsDavid S. Miller authored
More extern removals from Joe Perches. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 25 Sep, 2013 8 commits
-
-
git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/trivial-modsDavid S. Miller authored
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
- 24 Sep, 2013 4 commits
-
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-
Joe Perches authored
There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern in the kernel sources. Standardize on not using extern for function prototypes. Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern. extern is assumed by the compiler. Its use is as unnecessary as using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-