From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
"Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
"Reinette Chatre" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:59:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aV7JKsNpsmnf5oQL@agluck-desk3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221001205102.2319658-1-eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 01:51:02PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> +void __do_once_slow_done(bool *done, struct static_key_true *once_key,
> + struct module *mod)
> + __releases(once_mutex)
> +{
> + *done = true;
> + mutex_unlock(&once_mutex);
> + once_disable_jump(once_key, mod);
This seems to have been cut & pasted from __do_once_done(). But is there
a reason for the "sleepable" version to defer resetting the static key
in a work queue? Can't we just inline do:
BUG_ON(!static_key_enabled(once_key));
static_branch_disable(once_key);
> +}
-Tony
Credit to Reinette for raising this question. Blame me if I didn't spot
why a work queue is needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-07 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-01 20:51 [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts Eric Dumazet
2022-10-01 21:15 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-01 22:50 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-02 5:38 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-01 22:44 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-01 22:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-10-03 17:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-03 17:43 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 18:14 ` [PATCH net-next] once: rename _SLOW to _SLEEPABLE Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 18:14 ` [PATCH] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 22:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-10-02 8:58 ` [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts Christophe Leroy
2022-10-03 12:40 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2026-01-07 20:59 ` Luck, Tony [this message]
2026-01-07 21:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-01-07 22:34 ` Luck, Tony
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aV7JKsNpsmnf5oQL@agluck-desk3 \
--to=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.