Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/5] devlink: Allow set specific ops callbacks dynamically

Jakub Kicinski
2021-10-06T00:39:44Z

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 22:15:40 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:32:13AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:32:45 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > It is impossible, devlink_register() is part of .probe() flow and if it
> > > wasn't called -> probe didn't success -> net_device doesn't exist.
> >
> > Are you talking about reality or the bright future brought by auxbus?
>
> I looked on all the drivers which called to devlink_alloc() which is
> starting point before devlink_register(). All of them used it in the
> probe. My annotation patch checks that too.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/f65772d429d2c259bbc18cf5b1bbe61e39eb7081.1633284302.git.leonro@nvidia.com/T/#u
>
> So IMHO, it is reality.

You say that yet below you admit flashing is broken :/

> > > We are not having net_device without "connected" device beneath, aren't we?
> > >
> > > At least drivers that I checked are not prepared at all to handle call
> > > to devlink->ops.flash_update() if they didn't probe successfully.
> >
> > Last time I checked you moved the devlink_register() at the end of
> > probe which for all no-auxbus drivers means after register_netdev().
>
> I need to add a check of if(devlink_register) inside devlink_compat_flash_update().

... and the workarounds start to pile up.

> > I don't like it. If you're feeling strongly please gather support of
> > other developers. Right now it's my preference against yours. I don't
> > even see you making arguments that your approach is better, just that
> > mine is not perfect and requires some similar changes.
>
> I have an idea of how to keep static ops and allow devlink_set_ops()
> like functionality.
>
> What about if I group ops by some sort of commonalities?
>
> In my case, it will be devlink_reload_ops, which will include reload
> relevant callbacks and provide devlink_set_reload_ops() wrapper to set
> them?
>
> It will ensure that all pointers are const without need to have feature
> bits.

I don't understand why you keep pushing the op reassignment.