[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34c1e9d1-bfc1-48f9-a0ce-78762574fa10@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 14:48:15 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
razor@...ckwall.org, willemb@...gle.com, sdf@...ichev.me,
john.fastabend@...il.com, martin.lau@...nel.org, jordan@...fe.io,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, dw@...idwei.uk,
toke@...hat.com, yangzhenze@...edance.com, wangdongdong.6@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/15] net: Implement
netdev_nl_bind_queue_doit
On 10/23/25 12:27 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 10/20/25 6:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> + if (!src_dev->dev.parent) {
>> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack,
>> + "Source device is a virtual device");
>> + goto err_unlock_src_dev;
>> + }
>
> Is this check strictly needed? I think that if we relax it, it could be
> simpler to create all-virtual selftests.
It is needed given we need to always ensure lock ordering for the two devices,
that is, the order is always from the virtual to the physical device.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists