Le Sat, 14 Jun 2025 12:18:43 -0700,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:11:36 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote:
> > +static struct net_device *
> > +pse_control_find_net_by_id(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id,
> > + netdevice_tracker *tracker)
> > +{
> > + struct pse_control *psec, *next;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&pse_list_mutex);
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(psec, next, &pcdev->pse_control_head,
> > list) {
>
> nit: _safe is not necessary here, the body of the if always exits after
> dropping the lock
Indeed, I will drop it.
> Do you plan to add more callers for this function?
> Maybe it's better if it returns the psec pointer with the refcount
> elevated. Because it would be pretty neat if we could move the
> ethnl_pse_send_ntf(netdev, notifs, &extack); that pse_isr() does
> right after calling this function under the rtnl_lock.
> I don't think calling ethnl_pse_send_ntf() may crash the kernel as is,
> but it feels like a little bit of a trap to have ethtool code called
> outside of any networking lock.
Ok. My aim was to put the less amount of code inside the rtnl lock but if you
prefer I will call ethnl_pse_send_ntf() with the lock acquired.
Regards,
--
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
