Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: get rid of old udev related code
From: Jason Andryuk
Date: Thu Dec 12 2019 - 11:32:03 EST
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:56 AM Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the past it used to be the case that the Xen toolstack relied upon
> udev to execute backend hotplug scripts. However this has not been the
> case for many releases now and removal of the associated code in
> xen-netback shortens the source by more than 100 lines, and removes much
> complexity in the interaction with the xenstore backend state.
> NOTE: xen-netback is the only xenbus driver to have a functional uevent()
> method. The only other driver to have a method at all is
> pvcalls-back, and currently pvcalls_back_uevent() simply returns 0.
> Hence this patch also facilitates further cleanup.
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h | 11 ---
> drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c | 125 ++++---------------------------
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 122 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h b/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h
> index 05847eb91a1b..e48da004c1a3 100644
> -static inline void backend_switch_state(struct backend_info *be,
> - enum xenbus_state state)
> - struct xenbus_device *dev = be->dev;
> - pr_debug("%s -> %s\n", dev->nodename, xenbus_strstate(state));
> - be->state = state;
> - /* If we are waiting for a hotplug script then defer the
> - * actual xenbus state change.
> - */
> - if (!be->have_hotplug_status_watch)
> - xenbus_switch_state(dev, state);
have_hotplug_status_watch prevents xen-netback from switching to
connected state unless the the backend scripts have written
"hotplug-status" "success". I had always thought that was intentional
so the frontend doesn't connect when the backend is unconnected. i.e.
if the backend scripts fails, it writes "hotplug-status" "error" and
the frontend doesn't connect.
That behavior is independent of using udev to run the scripts. I'm
not opposed to removing it, but I think it at least warrants
mentioning in the commit message.