[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240513101517.2c88ece0@device-28.home>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 10:15:17 +0200
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.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>,
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, Nathan Chancellor
<nathan@...nel.org>, Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: phy_link_topology:
Lazy-initialize the link topology
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:07:29 +0200
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Hello again Heiner,
>
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 07:44:22 +0200
> Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On 07.05.2024 12:28, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > > Having the net_device's init path for the link_topology depend on
> > > IS_REACHABLE(PHYLIB)-protected helpers triggers errors when modules are being
> > > built with phylib as a module as-well, as they expect netdev->link_topo
> > > to be initialized.
> > >
> > > Move the link_topo initialization at the first PHY insertion, which will
> > > both improve the memory usage, and make the behaviour more predicatble
> > > and robust.
>
> I agree with some of the comments, as stated in my previous mail,
> however I'm struggling to find the time to fix, and re-test everything,
> especially before net-next closes. Would it be OK if I re-send with a
> fix for the kbuild bot warning, improve the commit log as you
> mentionned for patch 1 so that at least the issue can be solved ?
>
> I still have the netlink part of this work to send, so I definitely
> will have to rework that, but with a bit less time constraints so that
> I can properly re-test everything.
To clarify, I'm mostly talking about the merge of
phy_link_topology_core.h into phy_link_topology.h, I fear that this
could get rejected because of the added #include that would clutter a
bit net/core/dev.c with functions that are barely used.
All your other comments make perfect sense to me and I'm testing these
as we speak.
Regards,
Maxime
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maxime
Powered by blists - more mailing lists