[ovs-dev] [netlink 03/16] datapath: Merge "struct dp_port" into "struct vport".
blp at nicira.com
Fri Nov 5 18:28:14 UTC 2010
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 04:43:08PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:11:43PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/datapath/vport.c b/datapath/vport.c
> > > index 2ae0053..2363802 100644
> > > @@ -47,13 +47,12 @@ static struct hlist_head *dev_table;
> > > * one of these locks if you don't want the vport to be deleted out from under
> > > * you.
> > > *
> > > - * If you get a reference to a vport through a dp_port, it is protected
> > > + * If you get a reference to a vport through a datapath, it is protected
> > > * by RCU and you need to hold rcu_read_lock instead when reading.
> > > *
> > > * If multiple locks are taken, the hierarchy is:
> > > * 1. RTNL
> > > - * 2. DP
> > > - * 3. vport
> > > + * 2. vport
> > > */
> > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(vport_mutex);
> > It would be nice if we can simply this a little bit. vport_mutex was
> > introduced because vports existed outside the context of a particular
> > datapath and therefore it wasn't possible to rely on dp_mutex to
> > protect them from disappearing.
Hmm, vport_mutex is almost completely redundant with rtnl_lock now. If
I insert rtnl_lock/rtnl_unlock pairs into query_port(),
vport_user_stats_get(), vport_user_ether_get(), and
vport_user_mtu_get(), then I can drop vport_mutex entirely.
This seems reasonable to me so I've added patches to that effect to the
More information about the dev