[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240509201611.053027de@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 20:16:11 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@...gle.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Jeroen de Borst
<jeroendb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Harshitha Ramamurthy
<hramamurthy@...gle.com>, Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, John Fraker <jfraker@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Shailend Chand
<shailend@...gle.com>, rushilg@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] gve: Add flow steering ethtool support
On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:19:00 -0700 Ziwei Xiao wrote:
> > How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management
> > at such source code places?
> >
> Is the suggestion to combine dev_hold(netdev) together with
> rtnl_unlock()? If so, I think there might be different usages for
> using rtnl_unlock. For example, some drivers will call rtnl_unlock
> after dev_close(netdev). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you!
We are rather cautious about adoption of the scope-based resource
management in networking. Don't let Markus lead you astray.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists