From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 1/1] net sched actions: fix GETing actions
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:30:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUgDVoZOkftuh1SyVWbJj_zK1vS7JF4oqfA=NpxCeH0_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1473721658-6034-1-git-send-email-jhs@emojatatu.com>
 <CAM_iQpWDNzceBLqzVibyyqExk5MXajJCt6Yu3KkC2r2poU0DQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f24e1121-84c8-01d1-23cd-1288ba1402aa@mojatatu.com> <61972f5c-b2b7-efca-4068-1b3af9aabbf4@mojatatu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:35307 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756423AbcINQap (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:30:45 -0400
Received: by mail-it0-f65.google.com with SMTP id e20so1999415itc.2
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <61972f5c-b2b7-efca-4068-1b3af9aabbf4@mojatatu.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> wrote:
> On 16-09-13 03:47 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>
>> On 16-09-13 12:20 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>>>
>>> I am still trying to understand this piece, so here you hold the refcnt
>>> for the same action used by the later iteration? Otherwise there is
>>> almost none user inbetween hold and release...
>>>
>>> The comment you add is not clear to me, we use RTNL/RCU to
>>> sync destroy and replace, so how could that happen?
>>>
>>
>> I was worried about the destroy() hitting an error in that function.
>> If an action already existed and all we asked for was to
>> replace some attribute it would be deleted. It was the way the code was
>> before your changes so i just restored it to its original form.
>>
>
> And I have verified this is needed. I went and made gact return
> a failure if you replace something. I added a gact action; then
> when i replaced it failed. And when it failed it replace the existing
> action.

Oh, I see, the comments actually mislead me. ;) You are trying to
fix the rollback for failure path here... Makes sense to me now.

Thanks for verifying it.