[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230201110148.0ddd3a0b@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:01:48 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-net-drivers (AMD-Xilinx)" <linux-net-drivers@....com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"habetsm.xilinx@...il.com" <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
"ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"jiri@...dia.com" <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/8] sfc: add devlink support for ef100
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:07:33 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >This is due to the recommended/required devlink lock/unlock during
> >driver initialization/removal.
> >
> >I think it is better to keep the lock/unlock inside the specific driver
> >devlink code, and the functions naming reflects a time window when
> >devlink related/dependent processing is being done.
> >
> >I'm not against changing this, maybe adding the lock/unlock suffix would
> >be preferable?:
> >
> >int efx_probe_devlink_and_lock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_probe_devlink_unlock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_fini_devlink_lock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_fini_devlink_and_unlock(struct efx_nic *efx);
>
> Sounds better. Thanks!
FWIW I'd just take the devl lock in the main driver code.
devlink should be viewed as a layer between bus and driver rather
than as another subsystem the driver registers with. Otherwise reloads
and port creation get awkward.
But the above sounds okay, too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists