[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211101161122.37fbb99d@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:11:22 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, edwin.peer@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Require devlink lock during device
reload
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:52:19 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> >
> > Looks fine to me.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>
> Traces from mlxsw / netdevsim below:
Thanks a lot for the testing Ido!
Would you mind giving my RFC a spin as well on your syzbot machinery?
Any input on the three discussion points there?
(1) should we have a "locked" and "unlocked" API or use lock nesting?
(2) should we expose devlink lock so that drivers can use devlink
as a framework for their locking needs?
(3) should we let drivers take refs on the devlink instance?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists