Hi Nikolay,

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:

Hi Vladimir,
Let's take a step back for a moment and discuss the bridge unlock/lock sequences
that come with this set. I'd really like to avoid those as they're a recipe
for future problems. The only good way to achieve that currently is to keep
the PRE_FLAGS call and do that in unsleepable context but move the FLAGS call
after the flags have been changed (if they have changed obviously). That would
make the code read much easier since we'll have all our lock/unlock sequences
in the same code blocks and won't play games to get sleepable context.
Please let's think and work in that direction, rather than having:
+	spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock);
+	if (err) {
+		netdev_err(p->dev, "%s\n", extack._msg);
+		return err;
 	}
+

which immediately looks like a bug even though after some code checking we can
verify it's ok. WDYT?

I plan to get rid of most of the br->lock since it's been abused for a very long
time because it's essentially STP lock, but people have started using it for other
things and I plan to fix that when I get more time.

This won't make the sysfs codepath any nicer, will it?