[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240417180721.GA3212605@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:07:21 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Piergiorgio Beruto <piergiorgio.beruto@...il.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, mwojtas@...omium.org,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: link_topology: Don't stub-away the
topology creation
Hi Maxime,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:27:05PM +0200, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> Some of the phy_link_topology operations are protected by IS_REACHABLE,
> which can lead to scenarios where the consumer, built as modules, sees the topology
> unstubbed, whereas the initialization didn't occur.
>
> Don't stub away the creation of the topology, it has no dependency on
> any other parts like phylib, so we can make it always available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/2e11b89d-100f-49e7-9c9a-834cc0b82f97@gmail.com/
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240409201553.GA4124869@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
> ---
> Hi Nathan, Heiner,
>
> I'm currently at EOSS, so I'm sending this patch without having been
> able to properly test it (build-tested only), but as this addresses an
> issue for people using -next, I'm sending this anyway, sorry about that.
No worries, thanks for continuing to take a look. Unfortunately, this
patch fails to build during the linking stage for me with my
configuration:
x86_64-linux-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `free_netdev':
net/core/dev.c:11060:(.text+0xb14030): undefined reference to `phy_link_topo_destroy'
x86_64-linux-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `alloc_netdev_mqs':
net/core/dev.c:10966:(.text+0xb142d6): undefined reference to `phy_link_topo_create'
> Hopefully it can address the issue for now, I haven't given-up on your
> idea to introduce a config option Heiner :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Maxime
>
> include/linux/phy_link_topology_core.h | 15 ---------------
> 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/phy_link_topology_core.h b/include/linux/phy_link_topology_core.h
> index 0a6479055745..61e2592f24ac 100644
> --- a/include/linux/phy_link_topology_core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/phy_link_topology_core.h
> @@ -4,22 +4,7 @@
>
> struct phy_link_topology;
>
> -#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PHYLIB)
> -
> struct phy_link_topology *phy_link_topo_create(struct net_device *dev);
> void phy_link_topo_destroy(struct phy_link_topology *topo);
>
> -#else
> -
> -static inline struct phy_link_topology *phy_link_topo_create(struct net_device *dev)
> -{
> - return NULL;
> -}
> -
> -static inline void phy_link_topo_destroy(struct phy_link_topology *topo)
> -{
> -}
> -
> -#endif
> -
> #endif /* __PHY_LINK_TOPOLOGY_CORE_H */
> --
> 2.44.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists