| Message ID | 20250228-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-v2-0-fa8b2542b7a5@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | mptcp: pm: code reorganisation | expand |
Hi Matthieu,
Thank you for your modifications, that's great!
Our CI did some validations and here is its report:
- KVM Validation: normal: Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: debug: Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: btf-normal (only bpftest_all): Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: btf-debug (only bpftest_all): Success! ✅
- Task: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/13589541066
Initiator: Patchew Applier
Commits: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commits/5ed3b6f5ad7f
Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/mptcp/list/?series=938995
If there are some issues, you can reproduce them using the same environment as
the one used by the CI thanks to a docker image, e.g.:
$ cd [kernel source code]
$ docker run -v "${PWD}:${PWD}:rw" -w "${PWD}" --privileged --rm -it \
--pull always mptcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker:latest \
auto-normal
For more details:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker
Please note that despite all the efforts that have been already done to have a
stable tests suite when executed on a public CI like here, it is possible some
reported issues are not due to your modifications. Still, do not hesitate to
help us improve that ;-)
Cheers,
MPTCP GH Action bot
Bot operated by Matthieu Baerts (NGI0 Core)
Hi Matt, On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: > I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, but > now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the > associated > reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around the > path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in > different > conditions. > > I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress > patches. > I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions > renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to > simply > copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In other > words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, resolve > the > conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the modifications > by > copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, > please > let me know. > > Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different places: > > - pm.c had common code for all PMs > > - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but also > had > exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, NL > events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. > > - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific > in-kernel PM helpers > > To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by > moving > code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: > > - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: > - PM events: this code was already there > - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as > well > - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c > > - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- > kernel > PM. Now all functions are either called from: > - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used > - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands > - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in-kernel PM > - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns > > - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: > - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink > - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management > - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, and > they > have been marked as 'static'. > > - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: > - some helpers no longer need to be exported > - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if > needed. > > The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help for > the > maintenance in the long term. > > This will certainly impact future backports, but because other > cleanups > have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the addition > of > a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that now > seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have been > fixed > a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the selftests, > so > such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Addressing Geliang's comments > - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated patches > - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one now > in > a dedicated patch. > - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving code > from > one file to another to help with the reviews. Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead of changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like "/* generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? Patch 12 - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a separate patch is needed. - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after mptcp_remote_address - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into patch 6. Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from patch 13 as a separate one. Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to the previous patch? Thanks, -Geliang > - Link to v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-v1-0-cb4677096709@kernel.org > > --- > Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) (14): > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_mp_prio_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_work > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_subflow_chk_stale() > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr > mptcp: pm: kernel: add '_pm' to mptcp_nl_set_flags > mptcp: pm: avoid calling PM specific code from core > mptcp: pm: worker: split in-kernel and common tasks > mptcp: pm: export mptcp_remote_address > mptcp: pm: move generic helper at the top > mptcp: pm: move generic PM helpers to pm.c > mptcp: pm: split in-kernel PM specific code > mptcp: pm: move Netlink PM helpers to pm_netlink.c > > net/mptcp/Makefile | 2 +- > net/mptcp/pm.c | 644 +++++++++++---- > net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c | 1410 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 1934 ++---------------------------------- > ---------- > net/mptcp/pm_userspace.c | 11 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 5 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 36 +- > 7 files changed, 2029 insertions(+), 2013 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 6b32949274eb9e32fe867ba9a8f8cb98587ecf36 > change-id: 20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-13227530bd05 > > Best regards,
Hi Matt, On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: > I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, but > now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the > associated > reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around the > path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in > different > conditions. > > I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress > patches. > I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions > renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to > simply > copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In other > words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, resolve > the > conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the modifications > by > copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, > please > let me know. > > Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different places: > > - pm.c had common code for all PMs > > - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but also > had > exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, NL > events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. > > - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific > in-kernel PM helpers > > To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by > moving > code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: > > - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: > - PM events: this code was already there > - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as > well > - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c > > - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- > kernel > PM. Now all functions are either called from: > - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used > - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands > - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in-kernel PM > - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns > > - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: > - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink > - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management > - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, and > they > have been marked as 'static'. > > - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: > - some helpers no longer need to be exported > - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if > needed. > > The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help for > the > maintenance in the long term. > > This will certainly impact future backports, but because other > cleanups > have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the addition > of > a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that now > seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have been > fixed > a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the selftests, > so > such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Addressing Geliang's comments > - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated patches > - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one now > in > a dedicated patch. > - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving code > from > one file to another to help with the reviews. Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead of changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like "/* generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? Patch 12 - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a separate patch is needed. - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after mptcp_remote_address - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into patch 6. Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from patch 13 as a separate one. Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to the previous patch? Thanks, -Geliang > - Link to v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-v1-0-cb4677096709@kernel.org > > --- > Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) (14): > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_mp_prio_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_work > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_subflow_chk_stale() > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr > mptcp: pm: kernel: add '_pm' to mptcp_nl_set_flags > mptcp: pm: avoid calling PM specific code from core > mptcp: pm: worker: split in-kernel and common tasks > mptcp: pm: export mptcp_remote_address > mptcp: pm: move generic helper at the top > mptcp: pm: move generic PM helpers to pm.c > mptcp: pm: split in-kernel PM specific code > mptcp: pm: move Netlink PM helpers to pm_netlink.c > > net/mptcp/Makefile | 2 +- > net/mptcp/pm.c | 644 +++++++++++---- > net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c | 1410 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 1934 ++---------------------------------- > ---------- > net/mptcp/pm_userspace.c | 11 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 5 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 36 +- > 7 files changed, 2029 insertions(+), 2013 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 6b32949274eb9e32fe867ba9a8f8cb98587ecf36 > change-id: 20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-13227530bd05 > > Best regards,
Hi Matt, On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: > I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, but > now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the > associated > reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around the > path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in > different > conditions. > > I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress > patches. > I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions > renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to > simply > copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In other > words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, resolve > the > conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the modifications > by > copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, > please > let me know. > > Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different places: > > - pm.c had common code for all PMs > > - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but also > had > exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, NL > events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. > > - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific > in-kernel PM helpers > > To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by > moving > code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: > > - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: > - PM events: this code was already there > - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as > well > - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c > > - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- > kernel > PM. Now all functions are either called from: > - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used > - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands > - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in-kernel PM > - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns > > - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: > - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink > - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management > - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, and > they > have been marked as 'static'. > > - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: > - some helpers no longer need to be exported > - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if > needed. > > The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help for > the > maintenance in the long term. > > This will certainly impact future backports, but because other > cleanups > have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the addition > of > a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that now > seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have been > fixed > a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the selftests, > so > such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Addressing Geliang's comments > - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated patches > - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one now > in > a dedicated patch. > - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving code > from > one file to another to help with the reviews. Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead of changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like "/* generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? Patch 12 - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a separate patch is needed. - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after mptcp_remote_address - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a separate one. - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into patch 6. Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from patch 13 as a separate one. Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to the previous patch? Thanks, -Geliang > - Link to v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-v1-0-cb4677096709@kernel.org > > --- > Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) (14): > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_mp_prio_send_ack > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_work > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_subflow_chk_stale() > mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr > mptcp: pm: kernel: add '_pm' to mptcp_nl_set_flags > mptcp: pm: avoid calling PM specific code from core > mptcp: pm: worker: split in-kernel and common tasks > mptcp: pm: export mptcp_remote_address > mptcp: pm: move generic helper at the top > mptcp: pm: move generic PM helpers to pm.c > mptcp: pm: split in-kernel PM specific code > mptcp: pm: move Netlink PM helpers to pm_netlink.c > > net/mptcp/Makefile | 2 +- > net/mptcp/pm.c | 644 +++++++++++---- > net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c | 1410 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 1934 ++---------------------------------- > ---------- > net/mptcp/pm_userspace.c | 11 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 5 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 36 +- > 7 files changed, 2029 insertions(+), 2013 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 6b32949274eb9e32fe867ba9a8f8cb98587ecf36 > change-id: 20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-13227530bd05 > > Best regards,
Hi Geliang, On 01/03/2025 01:21, Geliang Tang wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: >> I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, but >> now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the >> associated >> reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around the >> path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in >> different >> conditions. >> >> I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress >> patches. >> I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions >> renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to >> simply >> copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In other >> words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, resolve >> the >> conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the modifications >> by >> copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, >> please >> let me know. >> >> Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different places: >> >> - pm.c had common code for all PMs >> >> - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but also >> had >> exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, NL >> events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. >> >> - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific >> in-kernel PM helpers >> >> To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by >> moving >> code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: >> >> - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: >> - PM events: this code was already there >> - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as >> well >> - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c >> >> - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- >> kernel >> PM. Now all functions are either called from: >> - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used >> - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands >> - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in-kernel PM >> - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns >> >> - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: >> - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink >> - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management >> - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, and >> they >> have been marked as 'static'. >> >> - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: >> - some helpers no longer need to be exported >> - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if >> needed. >> >> The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help for >> the >> maintenance in the long term. >> >> This will certainly impact future backports, but because other >> cleanups >> have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the addition >> of >> a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that now >> seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have been >> fixed >> a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the selftests, >> so >> such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - Addressing Geliang's comments >> - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated patches >> - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one now >> in >> a dedicated patch. >> - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving code >> from >> one file to another to help with the reviews. > > Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: Thank you for having looked at the v2. > Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. > Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. We could, but how can this help? If these patches are OK for the moment and reviewable, maybe no need to spend more time on that and merging stuff that might make it harder to follow, and might cause new conflicts? > Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead of > changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as > __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? Would it not be confusing with the previous functions? Especially in case of backports. > Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as > __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? No, the '__' prefix is usually used to mark that this function is going to be used in a "critical" section, e.g. when a lock is held. > Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep > mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like "/* > generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? I did that at the beginning, but: - that's strange not to put the generic helpers at the beginning - also strange to have to go down to see how a helper is implemented > Patch 12 > - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a > separate patch is needed. It is not, it is just a fix for a checkpatch warning mentioned in the commit message. The netdev FAQ seems to suggest avoiding such fixes, except if it is part of other changes. I don't think it is worth splitting, the behaviour is not really modified. > - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after mptcp_remote_address Why? I moved mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() there because it was in the middle of pm_netlink.c and it is very closed to remote_address. > - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after > mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. Why? > - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into pm.c" > from patch 12 as a separate one. Why? > - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 as a > separate one. Why? > - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into > patch 6. We cannot do that: it is called from pm.c, and we need remote_address(), at that time only declared in pm_netlink.c. > Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from patch > 13 as a separate one. Why? > Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to the > previous patch? For the two first ones, maybe but is it important? For mptcp_pm_gen.h, no. Thank you for the suggestions, but I don't think it is worth spending more time on that, except if you think it would help for the maintenance and the backports. Merging patches probably will not help, and splitting code being moved around is still too big for the backports. But maybe I missed something. I think it would be better to apply these patches ASAP, not to block further developments, or having to rebase this kind of series. WDYT? Cheers, Matt
Hi Matt, On Sat, 2025-03-01 at 12:10 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Geliang, > > On 01/03/2025 01:21, Geliang Tang wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > > > On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: > > > I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, > > > but > > > now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the > > > associated > > > reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around > > > the > > > path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in > > > different > > > conditions. > > > > > > I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress > > > patches. > > > I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions > > > renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to > > > simply > > > copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In > > > other > > > words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, > > > resolve > > > the > > > conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the > > > modifications > > > by > > > copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, > > > please > > > let me know. > > > > > > Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different > > > places: > > > > > > - pm.c had common code for all PMs > > > > > > - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but > > > also > > > had > > > exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, > > > NL > > > events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. > > > > > > - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific > > > in-kernel PM helpers > > > > > > To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by > > > moving > > > code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: > > > > > > - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: > > > - PM events: this code was already there > > > - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as > > > well > > > - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c > > > > > > - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- > > > kernel > > > PM. Now all functions are either called from: > > > - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used > > > - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands > > > - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in- > > > kernel PM > > > - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns > > > > > > - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: > > > - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink > > > - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management > > > - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, > > > and > > > they > > > have been marked as 'static'. > > > > > > - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: > > > - some helpers no longer need to be exported > > > - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if > > > needed. > > > > > > The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help > > > for > > > the > > > maintenance in the long term. > > > > > > This will certainly impact future backports, but because other > > > cleanups > > > have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the > > > addition > > > of > > > a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that > > > now > > > seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have > > > been > > > fixed > > > a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the > > > selftests, > > > so > > > such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > > > --- > > > Changes in v2: > > > - Addressing Geliang's comments > > > - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated > > > patches > > > - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one > > > now > > > in > > > a dedicated patch. > > > - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving > > > code > > > from > > > one file to another to help with the reviews. > > > > Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: > > Thank you for having looked at the v2. > > > Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. > > Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. > > We could, but how can this help? If these patches are OK for the > moment > and reviewable, maybe no need to spend more time on that and merging > stuff that might make it harder to follow, and might cause new > conflicts? > > > Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead > > of > > changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as > > __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? > > Would it not be confusing with the previous functions? Especially in > case of backports. > > > Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as > > __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? > > No, the '__' prefix is usually used to mark that this function is > going > to be used in a "critical" section, e.g. when a lock is held. > > > Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep > > mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like > > "/* > > generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? > > I did that at the beginning, but: > - that's strange not to put the generic helpers at the beginning > - also strange to have to go down to see how a helper is implemented > > > Patch 12 > > - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a > > separate patch is needed. > > It is not, it is just a fix for a checkpatch warning mentioned in the > commit message. The netdev FAQ seems to suggest avoiding such fixes, > except if it is part of other changes. I don't think it is worth > splitting, the behaviour is not really modified. > > > - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after > > mptcp_remote_address > > Why? I moved mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() there because it was in > the > middle of pm_netlink.c and it is very closed to remote_address. > > > - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after > > mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. > > Why? > > > - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into > > pm.c" > > from patch 12 as a separate one. > > Why? > > > - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 > > as a > > separate one. > > Why? > > > - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into > > patch 6. > > We cannot do that: it is called from pm.c, and we need > remote_address(), > at that time only declared in pm_netlink.c. > > > Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from > > patch > > 13 as a separate one. > > Why? > > > Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to > > the > > previous patch? > > For the two first ones, maybe but is it important? For > mptcp_pm_gen.h, no. > > Thank you for the suggestions, but I don't think it is worth spending > more time on that, except if you think it would help for the > maintenance > and the backports. Merging patches probably will not help, and > splitting > code being moved around is still too big for the backports. But maybe > I > missed something. > > I think it would be better to apply these patches ASAP, not to block > further developments, or having to rebase this kind of series. WDYT? Patches that move code to another location are not very friendly to backporting, especially large patches like this set, which almost always conflict. When conflicts occur, we need to deal with them manually. All my suggestions are to reduce the workload of manually dealing with conflicts when they occur. If the code is moved in one piece, we can handle it easily. If the function location changes during the code move, we need to move each function one by one, which increases the workload. If the function name changes, we need to compile and verify it at the same time, which further increases the workload. If the code logic also changes, the situation will be worse. It is possible that this patch does not need to be backported, but the subsequent PM code is modified based on the new code location, and the subsequent new features are developed based on it, so there is still a possibility that this patch needs to be backported. Since all my comments do not involve any code modifications, and the code itself in this set looks good to me, I am also willing to add my reviewed-by tag: Reviewed-by: Geliang Tang <geliang@kernel.org> Thanks, -Geliang > > Cheers, > Matt
Hi Geliang, On 03/03/2025 11:55, Geliang Tang wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Sat, 2025-03-01 at 12:10 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> Hi Geliang, >> >> On 01/03/2025 01:21, Geliang Tang wrote: >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 14:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: >>>> I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, >>>> but >>>> now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the >>>> associated >>>> reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around >>>> the >>>> path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in >>>> different >>>> conditions. >>>> >>>> I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress >>>> patches. >>>> I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions >>>> renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to >>>> simply >>>> copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In >>>> other >>>> words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, >>>> resolve >>>> the >>>> conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the >>>> modifications >>>> by >>>> copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, >>>> please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different >>>> places: >>>> >>>> - pm.c had common code for all PMs >>>> >>>> - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but >>>> also >>>> had >>>> exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, >>>> NL >>>> events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. >>>> >>>> - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific >>>> in-kernel PM helpers >>>> >>>> To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by >>>> moving >>>> code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: >>>> >>>> - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: >>>> - PM events: this code was already there >>>> - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as >>>> well >>>> - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c >>>> >>>> - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in- >>>> kernel >>>> PM. Now all functions are either called from: >>>> - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used >>>> - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands >>>> - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in- >>>> kernel PM >>>> - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns >>>> >>>> - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: >>>> - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink >>>> - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management >>>> - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, >>>> and >>>> they >>>> have been marked as 'static'. >>>> >>>> - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: >>>> - some helpers no longer need to be exported >>>> - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help >>>> for >>>> the >>>> maintenance in the long term. >>>> >>>> This will certainly impact future backports, but because other >>>> cleanups >>>> have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the >>>> addition >>>> of >>>> a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that >>>> now >>>> seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have >>>> been >>>> fixed >>>> a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the >>>> selftests, >>>> so >>>> such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> - Addressing Geliang's comments >>>> - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated >>>> patches >>>> - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one >>>> now >>>> in >>>> a dedicated patch. >>>> - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving >>>> code >>>> from >>>> one file to another to help with the reviews. >>> >>> Thanks for this v2, I have some comments for it: >> >> Thank you for having looked at the v2. >> >>> Patches 1, 2, 5 can be merged into one. >>> Patch 3 can be merged into patch 9. >> >> We could, but how can this help? If these patches are OK for the >> moment >> and reviewable, maybe no need to spend more time on that and merging >> stuff that might make it harder to follow, and might cause new >> conflicts? >> >>> Patch 4, change mptcp_pm_rm_addr_recv() as non-static here, instead >>> of >>> changing it in patch 9. How about renaming it as >>> __mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received? >> >> Would it not be confusing with the previous functions? Especially in >> case of backports. >> >>> Patch 7, how about renaming mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags_all as >>> __mptcp_pm_nl_set_flags too? >> >> No, the '__' prefix is usually used to mark that this function is >> going >> to be used in a "critical" section, e.g. when a lock is held. >> >>> Patch 11, how about dropping this patch, keep >>> mptcp_pm_addr_families_match() unmoved, but add a new section like >>> "/* >>> generic PM helpers */" to import the helpers there? >> >> I did that at the beginning, but: >> - that's strange not to put the generic helpers at the beginning >> - also strange to have to go down to see how a helper is implemented >> >>> Patch 12 >>> - in mptcp_remove_anno_list_by_saddr() behavioural is changed, a >>> separate patch is needed. >> >> It is not, it is just a fix for a checkpatch warning mentioned in the >> commit message. The netdev FAQ seems to suggest avoiding such fixes, >> except if it is part of other changes. I don't think it is worth >> splitting, the behaviour is not really modified. >> >>> - mptcp_lookup_subflow_by_saddr should be after >>> mptcp_remote_address >> >> Why? I moved mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() there because it was in >> the >> middle of pm_netlink.c and it is very closed to remote_address. >> >>> - mptcp_pm_sport_in_anno_list should be after >>> mptcp_lookup_anno_list_by_saddr and befor mptcp_pm_add_timer. >> >> Why? >> >>> - split "move all struct mptcp_pm_add_entry related code into >>> pm.c" >>> from patch 12 as a separate one. >> >> Why? >> >>> - split "move all send_ack related code into pm.c" from patch 12 >>> as a >>> separate one. >> >> Why? >> >>> - make mptcp_pm_is_init_remote_addr() static shoud be merged into >>> patch 6. >> >> We cannot do that: it is called from pm.c, and we need >> remote_address(), >> at that time only declared in pm_netlink.c. >> >>> Split "move all pm_nl_pernet related code into pm_kernel.c" from >>> patch >>> 13 as a separate one. >> >> Why? >> >>> Can the action of deleting three headers in patch 14 be advanced to >>> the >>> previous patch? >> >> For the two first ones, maybe but is it important? For >> mptcp_pm_gen.h, no. >> >> Thank you for the suggestions, but I don't think it is worth spending >> more time on that, except if you think it would help for the >> maintenance >> and the backports. Merging patches probably will not help, and >> splitting >> code being moved around is still too big for the backports. But maybe >> I >> missed something. >> >> I think it would be better to apply these patches ASAP, not to block >> further developments, or having to rebase this kind of series. WDYT? > > Patches that move code to another location are not very friendly to > backporting, especially large patches like this set, which almost > always conflict. When conflicts occur, we need to deal with them > manually. > > All my suggestions are to reduce the workload of manually dealing with > conflicts when they occur. > > If the code is moved in one piece, we can handle it easily. If the > function location changes during the code move, we need to move each > function one by one, which increases the workload. If the function name > changes, we need to compile and verify it at the same time, which > further increases the workload. If the code logic also changes, the > situation will be worse. > > It is possible that this patch does not need to be backported, but the > subsequent PM code is modified based on the new code location, and the > subsequent new features are developed based on it, so there is still a > possibility that this patch needs to be backported. Thank you for your reply! Yes, clearly this series can cause troubles for future fixes in the PM manager, but it looks worth it, and the right time to do so with all other cleanups. Usually, conflicts in smaller chunk are easier to deal with. Now, here it is a bit different: big blocks of code are being moved from one side to another. The idea is not to backport this series. We might want to do that to ease the backport of some fixes, but it feels to me that we would either take all patches from this series, or none. So far, I think I did the backports of all MPTCP patches having conflicts, and my feeling is that the v2 is OK like that. It was good to extract all functions renaming in separated patches and only move code from one file to another as you suggested after having reviewed the v1. This will help for other reviews, but also for the backports, where we will clearly understand what has moved where. I don't think we need more. > Since all my comments do not involve any code modifications, and the > code itself in this set looks good to me, I am also willing to add my > reviewed-by tag: > > Reviewed-by: Geliang Tang <geliang@kernel.org> Thank you! I'm then going to apply this series in our tree ASAP. Cheers, Matt
Hi Geliang, On 03/03/2025 12:07, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > On 03/03/2025 11:55, Geliang Tang wrote: >> On Sat, 2025-03-01 at 12:10 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: (...) >>> I think it would be better to apply these patches ASAP, not to block >>> further developments, or having to rebase this kind of series. WDYT? >> >> Patches that move code to another location are not very friendly to >> backporting, especially large patches like this set, which almost >> always conflict. When conflicts occur, we need to deal with them >> manually. >> >> All my suggestions are to reduce the workload of manually dealing with >> conflicts when they occur. >> >> If the code is moved in one piece, we can handle it easily. If the >> function location changes during the code move, we need to move each >> function one by one, which increases the workload. If the function name >> changes, we need to compile and verify it at the same time, which >> further increases the workload. If the code logic also changes, the >> situation will be worse. >> >> It is possible that this patch does not need to be backported, but the >> subsequent PM code is modified based on the new code location, and the >> subsequent new features are developed based on it, so there is still a >> possibility that this patch needs to be backported. > > Thank you for your reply! > > Yes, clearly this series can cause troubles for future fixes in the PM > manager, but it looks worth it, and the right time to do so with all > other cleanups. > > Usually, conflicts in smaller chunk are easier to deal with. Now, here > it is a bit different: big blocks of code are being moved from one side > to another. The idea is not to backport this series. We might want to do > that to ease the backport of some fixes, but it feels to me that we > would either take all patches from this series, or none. > > So far, I think I did the backports of all MPTCP patches having > conflicts, and my feeling is that the v2 is OK like that. It was good to > extract all functions renaming in separated patches and only move code > from one file to another as you suggested after having reviewed the v1. > This will help for other reviews, but also for the backports, where we > will clearly understand what has moved where. I don't think we need more. > >> Since all my comments do not involve any code modifications, and the >> code itself in this set looks good to me, I am also willing to add my >> reviewed-by tag: >> >> Reviewed-by: Geliang Tang <geliang@kernel.org> > Thank you! I'm then going to apply this series in our tree ASAP. Now in our tree (feat. for net-next): New patches for t/upstream: - caa77b6a80a2: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack - be18d814ea8b: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_mp_prio_send_ack - c6112330af30: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_work - 33602d19dcfd: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received - d68e766378ca: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_subflow_chk_stale() - 8497c3d80054: mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr - 6df9239877ee: mptcp: pm: kernel: add '_pm' to mptcp_nl_set_flags - 901068cd09dc: mptcp: pm: avoid calling PM specific code from core - dde36f90e966: mptcp: pm: worker: split in-kernel and common tasks - 309274c12f21: mptcp: pm: export mptcp_remote_address - 73dff270e144: mptcp: pm: move generic helper at the top - 6295203b8677: mptcp: pm: move generic PM helpers to pm.c - 0ac713141723: mptcp: pm: split in-kernel PM specific code - d96862b4bb41: mptcp: pm: move Netlink PM helpers to pm_netlink.c - Results: a2a605f37c1b..b084c48057bb (export) Tests are now in progress: - export: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/f4b35b693104bc77bd7419868548eba9649a4d9a/checks Cheers, Matt
I have been thinking about that during the past couple of months, but now, with the recent modifications done by Geliang, and the associated reviews, I really think it is time to reorganise the code around the path-managers to avoid confusions, and a mix of code used in different conditions. I hope this will not cause too many issues with the in-progress patches. I tried only to move the code around, and minimise the functions renaming. Then, to switch to the new code, it might be easier to simply copy your modified code from the old place to the new one. In other words, duplicate the net/mptcp directory, then do a rebase, resolve the conflicts with 'git restore --ours', then reapply the modifications by copying your old code to the new place. If it is too difficult, please let me know. Before this series, the PM code was dispersed in different places: - pm.c had common code for all PMs - pm_netlink.c was supposed to be about the in-kernel PM, but also had exported common helpers, callbacks used by the different PMs, NL events for PM userspace daemon, etc. quite confusing. - pm_userspace.c had userspace PM only code, but using specific in-kernel PM helpers To clarify the code, a reorganisation is suggested here, only by moving code around, and small helper renaming to avoid confusions: - pm_netlink.c now only contains common PM Netlink code: - PM events: this code was already there - shared helpers around Netlink code that were already there as well - shared Netlink commands code from pm.c - pm_kernel.c now contains only code that is specific to the in-kernel PM. Now all functions are either called from: - pm.c: events coming from the core, when this PM is being used - pm_netlink.c: for shared Netlink commands - mptcp_pm_gen.c: for Netlink commands specific to the in-kernel PM - sockopt.c: for the exported counters per netns - pm.c got many code from pm_netlink.c: - helpers used from both PMs and not linked to Netlink - callbacks used by different PMs, e.g. ADD_ADDR management - some helpers have been renamed to remove the '_nl' prefix, and they have been marked as 'static'. - protocol.h has been updated accordingly: - some helpers no longer need to be exported - new ones needed to be exported: they have been prefixed if needed. The code around the PM is now less confusing, which should help for the maintenance in the long term. This will certainly impact future backports, but because other cleanups have already done recently, and more are coming to ease the addition of a new path-manager controlled with BPF (struct_ops), doing that now seems to be a good time. Also, many issues around the PM have been fixed a few months ago while increasing the code coverage in the selftests, so such big reorganisation can be done with more confidence now. Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> --- Changes in v2: - Addressing Geliang's comments - The renaming of common helpers have been done in dedicated patches - Some helpers have been kept where they were in pm.c, except one now in a dedicated patch. - The last patch has been split in smaller chunks, only moving code from one file to another to help with the reviews. - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-v1-0-cb4677096709@kernel.org --- Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) (14): mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_mp_prio_send_ack mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_work mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_subflow_chk_stale() mptcp: pm: remove '_nl' from mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr mptcp: pm: kernel: add '_pm' to mptcp_nl_set_flags mptcp: pm: avoid calling PM specific code from core mptcp: pm: worker: split in-kernel and common tasks mptcp: pm: export mptcp_remote_address mptcp: pm: move generic helper at the top mptcp: pm: move generic PM helpers to pm.c mptcp: pm: split in-kernel PM specific code mptcp: pm: move Netlink PM helpers to pm_netlink.c net/mptcp/Makefile | 2 +- net/mptcp/pm.c | 644 +++++++++++---- net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c | 1410 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 1934 ++-------------------------------------------- net/mptcp/pm_userspace.c | 11 +- net/mptcp/protocol.c | 5 +- net/mptcp/protocol.h | 36 +- 7 files changed, 2029 insertions(+), 2013 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 6b32949274eb9e32fe867ba9a8f8cb98587ecf36 change-id: 20250227-mptcp-pm-reorg-code-13227530bd05 Best regards,