[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ceda0507-e25a-43af-bad6-e9ede474ff94@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:46:15 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
razor@...ckwall.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 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, 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 10/28/25 11:41 PM, David Wei wrote:
> On 2025-10-23 19:28, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:23:42 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> +void netdev_rx_queue_peer(struct net_device *src_dev,
>>> + struct netdev_rx_queue *src_rxq,
>>> + struct netdev_rx_queue *dst_rxq)
>>> +{
>>> + netdev_assert_locked(src_dev);
>>> + netdev_assert_locked(dst_rxq->dev);
>>> +
>>> + netdev_hold(src_dev, &src_rxq->dev_tracker, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> Isn't ->dev_tracker already used by sysfs?
>
> You're right, it is. Can netdevice_tracker not be shared?
Given this is not common practice, I've added a peer_tracker (given
this is also only enabled / takes space on debug kernels).
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists