Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210117224750.6572-1-xie.he.0141@gmail.com> <6fb2a40bf347997416cd38454d1b194a@dev.tdt.de>
In-Reply-To: <6fb2a40bf347997416cd38454d1b194a@dev.tdt.de>
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:54:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJht_EMYEvcsOn6QGxGFBeR288ep+vJNxJVan48R8mEoVaVpUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: lapb: Add locking to the lapb module
To:     Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:34 AM Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de> wrote:
>
> > 4. In lapb_device_event, replace the "lapb_disconnect_request" call
> > with
> > the content of "lapb_disconnect_request", to avoid trying to hold the
> > lock twice. When I do this, I removed "lapb_start_t1timer" because I
> > don't think it's necessary to start the timer when "NETDEV_GOING_DOWN".
>
> I don't like the code redundancy this creates. Maybe you should move the
> actual functionality from lapb_disconnect_request() to a
> __lapb_disconnect_request(), and in lapb_disconnect_request() call this
> function including locking around it and also in lapb_device_event
> (without locking).
>
> Calling lapb_start_t1timer() on a "NETDEV_GOING_DOWN" event does not
> hurt and is correct from a protocol flow point of view after sending
> the DISC.

Thanks! I created a new __lapb_disconnect_request function and the
code indeed looked cleaner. I'll send a new version.