Use the new function __bond_next_slave().

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Add a new function, __bond_next_slave(), which uses neighbours to find the
next slave after the slave provided. It will be further used to gradually
go start using neighbour netdev_adjacent infrastructure instead of
bonding's own lists.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

We don't really need it, and it's really hard to RCUify the list->prev.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

For that, use netdev_adjacent_get_private(list_head) on bond's lower
neighbour list members. Also, add a small macro - bond_slave_list(bond),
which returns the bond list via neighbour list.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

It will be useful to get first/last element.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

The same way as it was used for its own slave_list.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently we verify if we have slaves by checking if bond->slave_list is
empty. Create a define bond_has_slaves() and use it, a bit more readable
and easier to change in the future.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

It has no users, so we can remove it.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently it uses the hard-to-rcuify bond_for_each_slave_from(), and also
it doesn't check every slave for disrepencies between the actual
IS_UP(slave) and the slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP, but only till we find the
next suitable slave.

Fix this by using bond_for_each_slave() and storing the first good slave in
*before till we find the current_arp_slave, after that we store the first good
slave in new_slave. If new_slave is empty - use the slave stored in before,
and if it's also empty - then we didn't find any suitable slave.

Also, in the meanwhile, check for each slave status.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

bond_find_best_slave() does not have to be balanced - i.e. return the slave
that is *after* some other slave, but rather return the best slave that
suits, except of bond->primary_slave - in which case we just return it if
it's suitable.

After that we just look through all the slaves and return either first up
slave or the slave whose link came back earliest.

We also don't care about curr_active_slave lock cause we use it in
bond_should_change_active() only and there we take it right away - i.e. it
won't go away.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently, we're using bond_for_each_slave_from(), which is really hard to
implement under RCU and/or neighbour list.

Remove it and use bond_for_each_slave() instead, taking care of the last
used slave.

Also, rename next_rx_slave to rx_slave and store the current (last)
rx_slave.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently, there are two loops - first we find the first slave in an
aggregator after the xmit_hash_policy() returned number, and after that we
loop from that slave, over bonding head, and till that slave to find any
suitable slave to send the packet through.

Replace it by just one bond_for_each_slave() loop, which first loops
through the requested number of slaves, saving the first suitable one, and
after that we've hit the requested number of slaves to skip - search for
any up slave to send the packet through. If we don't find such kind of
slave - then just send the packet through the first suitable slave found.

Logic remains unchainged, and we skip two loops. Also, refactor it a bit
for readability.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

We're safe agains removal there, cause we use neighbours primitives.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

It needs a list_head *iter, so add it wherever needed. Use both non-rcu and
rcu variants.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
CC: Dimitris Michailidis <dm@chelsio.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

We only use it in rollback scenarios and can easily use the standart
bond_for_each_dev() instead.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Add a possibility to iterate through netdev_adjacent's private, currently
only for lower neighbours.

Add both RCU and RTNL/other locking variants of iterators, and make the
non-rcu variant to be safe from removal.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

It should be used under rtnl/bonding lock, so use the non-RCU version.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Use the new provided function when attaching the lower slave to populate
its ->private with struct slave *new_slave. Also, move it to the end to
be able to 'find' it only after it was completely initialized, and
deinitialize in the first place on release.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently, even though we can access any linked device, we can't attach
anything to it, which is vital to properly manage them.

To fix this, add a new void *private to netdev_adjacent and functions
setting/getting it (per link), so that we can save, per example, bonding's
slave structures there, per slave device.

netdev_master_upper_dev_link_private(dev, upper_dev, private) links dev to
upper dev and populates the neighbour link only with private.

netdev_lower_dev_get_private{,_rcu}() returns the private, if found.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently we have only the RTNL flavour, however we can traverse it while
holding only RCU, so add the RCU search. Add an RCU variant that uses
list_head * as an argument, so that it can be universally used afterwards.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently, we distinguish neighbours (first-level linked devices) from
non-neighbours by the neighbour bool in the netdev_adjacent. This could be
quite time-consuming in case we would like to traverse *only* through
neighbours - cause we'd have to traverse through all devices and check for
this flag, and in a (quite common) scenario where we have lots of vlans on
top of bridge, which is on top of a bond - the bonding would have to go
through all those vlans to get its upper neighbour linked devices.

This situation is really unpleasant, cause there are already a lot of cases
when a device with slaves needs to go through them in hot path.

To fix this, introduce a new upper/lower device lists structure -
adj_list, which contains only the neighbours. It works always in
pair with the all_adj_list structure (renamed from upper/lower_dev_list),
i.e. both of them contain the same links, only that all_adj_list contains
also non-neighbour device links. It's really a small change visible,
currently, only for __netdev_adjacent_dev_insert/remove(), and doesn't
change the main linked logic at all.

Also, add some comments a fix a name collision in
netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu() and rework the naming by the following
rules:

netdev_(all_)(upper|lower)_*

If "all_" is present, then we work with the whole list of upper/lower
devices, otherwise - only with direct neighbours. Uninline functions - to
get better stack traces.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently we make use of bool upper when we want to specify if we want to
work with upper/lower list. It's, however, harder to read, debug and
occupies a lot more code.

Fix this by just passing the correct upper/lower_dev_list list_head pointer
instead of bool upper, and work internally with it.

CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
CC: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Currently we always use the first member of the arp_queue to determine
the sender ip address of the arp packet (or in case of IPv6 - source
address of the ndisc packet). This skb is fixed as long as the queue is
not drained by a complete purge because of a timeout or by a successful
response.

If the first packet enqueued on the arp_queue is from a local application
with a manually set source address and the to be discovered system
does some kind of uRPF checks on the source address in the arp packet
the resolving process hangs until a timeout and restarts. This hurts
communication with the participating network node.

This could be mitigated a bit if we use the latest enqueued skb's
source address for the resolving process, which is not as static as
the arp_queue's head. This change of the source address could result in
better recovery of a failed solicitation.

Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Reviewed-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

More extern removals from Joe Perches.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

There are a mix of function prototypes with and without extern
in the kernel sources.  Standardize on not using extern for
function prototypes.

Function prototypes don't need to be written with extern.
extern is assumed by the compiler.  Its use is as unnecessary as
using auto to declare automatic/local variables in a block.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>