From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1]core:Change a wrong explain about dev_get_by_name Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:10:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1363799443.2677.2.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <1363793549.3333.12.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tingwei liu , , Alexey Kuznetsov , To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:63839 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755263Ab3CTRKt (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:10:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1363793549.3333.12.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 08:32 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 17:33 +0800, tingwei liu wrote: > > From 5d787e8c3725efa6af3036eeb52aba1905c70de9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: root > > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:39:59 +0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] Change a wrong explain about dev_get_by_name > > > > No changelog ? This patch really needs a changelog. > > I have no idea why we should document this function being not safe in > irq context. > > Most part of networking stack is non safe in hard irq context. > > Should we add a comment in front of all possible entry points ? If they are wrongly documented as 'can be called from any context', yes. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.