[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a5c5b1f9-60e9-6e82-911e-03e56ff42da1@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:35:32 -0800
From: Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
ioana.ciornei@....com, dmichail@...gible.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
tchornyi@...vell.com, tariqt@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
leon@...nel.org, idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com,
vladimir.oltean@....com, claudiu.manoil@....com,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
shannon.nelson@....com, brett.creeley@....com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/8] devlink: call
devlink_port_register/unregister() on registered instance
On 12/5/22 11:41 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:55:32AM CET, shnelson@....com wrote:
>> On 12/5/22 7:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> Change the drivers that use devlink_port_register/unregister() to call
>>> these functions only in case devlink is registered.
>>
>> I haven't kept up on all the discussion about this, but is there no longer a
>> worry about registering the devlink object before all the related
>> configuration bits are in place?
>>
>> Does this open any potential issues with userland programs seeing the devlink
>> device and trying to access port before they get registered?
>
> What exactly do you have in mind? Could you please describe it?
It looks like this could be setting up a race condition that some
userland udev automation might hit if it notices the device, looks for
the port, but doesn't see the port yet. Leon's patch turned this around
so that the ports would show up at the same time as the device.
sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists