[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <IA1PR12MB6353ED5F4DAA71B81C4B4481AB1C9@IA1PR12MB6353.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 11:18:25 +0000
From: Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
"atenart@...nel.org" <atenart@...nel.org>,
"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for
IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emeel Hakim
> Sent: Friday, 9 December 2022 12:19
> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>;
> davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; pabeni@...hat.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; sd@...asysnail.net; atenart@...nel.org; jiri@...nulli.us
> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for
> IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Sent: Friday, 9 December 2022 4:33
> > To: Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>;
> > davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; pabeni@...hat.com;
> > netdev@...r.kernel.org; sd@...asysnail.net; atenart@...nel.org;
> > jiri@...nulli.us
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for
> > IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
> >
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:32:44 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > I think you're just moving this code, but still.
> >
> > And by "by still" I mean - it's still a bug, so it needs to be fixed first.
>
> The code added by those patches does not use the rtnl_lock, the lock is just getting
> moved as part of sharing similar code, but the new code is still not using it, I don’t
> think those patches need to wait until a fix of an existing locking issue as long as
> the new code is not inserting any bugs.
I will send a fix patch shortly as requested.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists