[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKuTLk+pWGxR36VgWUVnz2inYdqPvJP6_e8nu4TRgUO=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:59:26 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>, Raju Rangoju <rajur@...lsio.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] net: introduce napi_is_scheduled helper
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:56 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:55 PM Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 02:49:11PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:43 PM Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:29 PM Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ehhh the idea here was to reduce code duplication since the very same
> > > > > > test will be done in stmmac. So I guess this code cleanup is a NACK and
> > > > > > I have to duplicate the test in the stmmac driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > I simply wanted to add a comment in front of this function/helper,
> > > > > advising not using it unless absolutely needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus my question "In which context is it safe to call this helper ?"
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as it was private with a driver, I did not mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if made public in include/linux/netdevice.h, I would rather not
> > > > > have to explain
> > > > > to future users why it can be problematic.
> > > >
> > > > Oh ok!
> > > >
> > > > We have plenty of case similar to this. (example some clock API very
> > > > internal that should not be used normally or regmap related)
> > > >
> > > > I will include some comments warning that this should not be used in
> > > > normal circumstances and other warnings. If you have suggestion on what
> > > > to add feel free to write them.
> > > >
> > > > Any clue on how to proceed with the sge driver?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would remove use of this helper for something with no race ?
> > >
> > > Feel free to submit this :
> > >
> > > (Alternative would be to change napi_schedule() to return a boolean)
> > >
> >
> > Think mod napi_schedule() to return a bool would result in massive
> > warning (actually error with werror) with return value not handled.
> >
>
> It should not, unless we added a __must_check
This was what I was thinking :
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index e070a4540fbaf4a9cf310d5f53c4401840c72776..6aa2bc315411d1a0f7db314f1fbfb11aae7c31fe
100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -491,10 +491,13 @@ bool napi_schedule_prep(struct napi_struct *n);
* Schedule NAPI poll routine to be called if it is not already
* running.
*/
-static inline void napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n)
+static inline bool napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n)
{
- if (napi_schedule_prep(n))
+ if (napi_schedule_prep(n)) {
__napi_schedule(n);
+ return true;
+ }
+ return false;
}
/**
Powered by blists - more mailing lists