Subject: Re: unregister_netdevice: waiting for eth0 to become free. Usage
 count = 1
To: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
References: <CAM_iQpW2=aKKUmWanbuhqXdZGxr_TqB5pQ+U+A0+=optuGX5-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAqxLXv60ReJu26omM6p=ZboEm-Z-3w+q0JcxLXDqqK5ohNoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_AL8uUghtZgp4OmqygcFs-Jiy286P5r6tRd+yeSWxR3KA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAqxLXY-kE2N__eDq514cLycR0-QRpyOCMWpdttO6fgovE2rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_C_rEYkJhcniyy6HUHgNxWFoxWzZ-WHsaSmNDwx4D+RXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_AOcNkAWPc7NFBnr8QWi3eHdJiQ2=8D_DB_XthwSDL2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAqxLUoV6EQvofTEv9whW1_QMPBPU7eJBhRFUjaSs7CGeRFww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM_iQpWMWg5ytDq2Y9p9uet1zowGuCX+eksyiyxu9vQ18WoPxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_CooRGNOQN3fosF0JLqmd9aOTuNHKNPE8cbrzDH6c176w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_COwXWP97wSHvzokmm8ckQ2QEd7=dfNH04ttDPm_z3bcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170812180129.GA31700@splinter>
 <CAEA6p_Cngs9Nx9OZ15oRMu_43oZTYHjzcw2vzgemfEyh_g0nNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <61d95fe2-edfd-9fc4-5e21-5b96e4e03c9f@gmail.com>
 <CAEA6p_BtBdPviFVRC4UoJchbz7eH9fM=KDihYA3zUQebmNBpdA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5a4e7562-49f7-a91f-5776-5a0efe9161c7@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:08:03 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEA6p_BtBdPviFVRC4UoJchbz7eH9fM=KDihYA3zUQebmNBpdA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1276
Lines: 28

On 8/13/17 2:56 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
>> Looking at my patch to move host routes from loopback to device with the
>> address, I have this:
>>
>> @@ -2789,7 +2808,8 @@ static int fib6_ifdown(struct rt6_info *rt, void *arg)
>>         const struct arg_dev_net *adn = arg;
>>         const struct net_device *dev = adn->dev;
>>
>> -       if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev) &&
>> +       if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev ||
>> +            (netdev_unregistering(dev) && rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev)) &&
>>             rt != adn->net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry &&
>>             (rt->rt6i_nsiblings == 0 ||
>>              (dev && netdev_unregistering(dev)) ||
> 
> As you explained earlier, after your patch, all entries in the fib6
> tree will have rt->dst.dev be the same as rt->rt6i_idev->dev except
> those ones created by p6_rt_cache_alloc() and ip6_rt_pcpu_alloc().
> Then the above newly added check is mainly to catch those cached dst
> entries (created by ip6_rt_cached_alloc()). right?
> And it is required because __ipv6_ifa_notify() -> ip6_del_rt() won't
> take care of those cached dst entries.
> 
> Then I think I should wait for your patches to get merged before
> submitting my patch?

no. your patch will need to go back to 4.12; my changes will not be
appropriate for that.