[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40d06932-3704-4eea-887f-ba286085532d@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:32:20 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Frank Sae <Frank.Sae@...or-comm.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xiaogang.fan@...or-comm.com, fei.zhang@...or-comm.com,
hua.sun@...or-comm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 05/14] motorcomm:yt6801: Implement the
.ndo_open function
> +static int fxgmac_open(struct net_device *netdev)
> +{
> + struct fxgmac_pdata *priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&priv->mutex);
What is this mutex protecting? Where it is defined you have:
struct mutex mutex; /* Driver lock */
which does not help at all. Why is the RTNL lock not sufficient?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists