[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220310132801.2fbfb3bd@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:28:01 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc: idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, leonro@...dia.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 0/6] devlink: expose instance locking and
simplify port splitting
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:13:02 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:57:17AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > Thanks for working on this. I ran a few tests that exercise these code
> > paths with a debug config and did not see any immediate problems. I will
> > go over the patches later today
>
> Went over the patches and they look good to me. Thanks again. Will run a
> full regression with them on Sunday.
Thanks!
> I read [1] and [2] again to refresh my memory about this conversion. Can
> you provide a rough outline of how you plan to go about it?
TBH I haven't started on breaking out more patches, yet. My rough
idea was to try to tackle the eswitch callback next and then the
reset callback.
> Asking so that I will know what to expect and how it all fits
> together. I expect that eventually 'DEVLINK_NL_FLAG_NO_LOCK' will be
> removed from 'DEVLINK_CMD_RELOAD' and then the
> devl_lock()/devl_unlock() that you left in drivers will be moved to
> earlier in the probe path so that we don't deadlock on reload.
Yup, that's the end goal 🤞
Powered by blists - more mailing lists