[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250423171431.2cd8ca21@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 17:14:31 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeroendb@...gle.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
pkaligineedi@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com, ziweixiao@...gle.com,
shailend@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] gve: Add adminq lock for creating and destroying
multiple queues
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:43:23 +0000 Harshitha Ramamurthy wrote:
> Also this patch cleans up the error handling code of
> gve_adminq_destroy_tx_queue.
> static int gve_adminq_destroy_tx_queue(struct gve_priv *priv, u32 queue_index)
> {
> union gve_adminq_command cmd;
> - int err;
>
> memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(cmd));
> cmd.opcode = cpu_to_be32(GVE_ADMINQ_DESTROY_TX_QUEUE);
> @@ -808,11 +820,7 @@ static int gve_adminq_destroy_tx_queue(struct gve_priv *priv, u32 queue_index)
> .queue_id = cpu_to_be32(queue_index),
> };
>
> - err = gve_adminq_issue_cmd(priv, &cmd);
> - if (err)
> - return err;
> -
> - return 0;
> + return gve_adminq_issue_cmd(priv, &cmd);
> }
You mean this cleanup? That's not appropriate for a stable fix...
Could you also explain which callers of this core are not already
under rtnl_lock and/pr the netdev instance lock?
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists