[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314989161.3419.5.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:46:01 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org, fubar@...ibm.com,
andy@...yhouse.net, kaber@...sh.net, bprakash@...adcom.com,
JBottomley@...allels.com, robert.w.love@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
decot@...gle.com, mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, amit.salecha@...gic.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
xiaosuo@...il.com, greearb@...delatech.com, loke.chetan@...il.com,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...n-fcoe.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 v2] net: consolidate and fix
ethtool_ops->get_settings calling
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:26 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> This patch does several things:
> - introduces __ethtool_get_settings which is called from ethtool code and
> from dev_ethtool_get_settings() as well.
> - dev_ethtool_get_settings() becomes rtnl wrapper for
> __ethtool_get_settings()
[...]
I don't like this locking change. Most other dev_*() functions require
the caller to hold RTNL, and it will break any OOT module calling
dev_ethtool_get_settings() without producing any warning at compile
time. Why not put an ASSERT_RTNL() in it instead?
The rest of this looks fine.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists