From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 063AA1BEF82 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:33:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737452039; cv=none; b=KjVeuD5yiHYfxySOz2F9FqIEL5UJyoEUt2KroUhN36CnixTeERlMk1xwa0+WSDGWpDgQM6qRe6SLOQQ5rykz6ZhpQK3jy5szrDWXItiVqJ5tb6kGX0XFOIPuvQ/V22BCJSU7TII/3MtS/Ta7oWTxzP2FHzdBas+QSACwlzzwfGA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737452039; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e6TimPx7ouec9YtTSSuiajrV4fB+uxQXs8SL/4d1m2U=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc: To:Date:Message-ID; b=kf25bsXxENbfqmazca5JeddIzLEiQQRGdEBMrKEK34JpNwN5rtA3/VhoSISFScscLmEb3hODRGGBG11/Q7x4Ban+/eTu/r8cTjQleqW9VEs0OyUvrGg5PRbhUzsaFsz9Kz6FMyfrFVU3eBs3isRV2kABy6+UgGO614e29IBUjhU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UXXBL5LX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="UXXBL5LX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D70A0C4CEDF; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:33:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1737452038; bh=e6TimPx7ouec9YtTSSuiajrV4fB+uxQXs8SL/4d1m2U=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc:To:Date:From; b=UXXBL5LXiG6uXYL40VozBZpEwwQnmRjbwVx+/umlISY1dgek7WzgW2w36qx4zhBgA Ev2ZLvhKuv+3eFt8iHKsIPa6UtAUdOK2AZebqskqPzWMQg5q/EVBvMLFCORXD/s+M/ YCjJVOdGPXf1RqvE1XB23rQyg1Mbom1527Mj+fTd0Upw7lhHn1ukH2YDuf4peWCSMi FfXZY1RTSgx3ZyhiZhEw8SRHb5pvYFLStnSKcZOmnn4jHFJebV1XRIGlXfpA2C1tn4 T0F1cOZczp2pwmgY0qu+lUK2bpeA2nwOlbu20lUzEjQwIzrnnFVJw70hJtg+4SIuo7 06+Odug/N2Ivg== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20250120114400.55fffeda@kernel.org> References: <20250117102612.132644-1-atenart@kernel.org> <20250117102612.132644-4-atenart@kernel.org> <20250120114400.55fffeda@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net-sysfs: prevent uncleared queues from being re-added From: Antoine Tenart Cc: davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Kicinski Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:33:54 +0100 Message-ID: <173745203452.4844.5509848806009835293@kwain> Quoting Jakub Kicinski (2025-01-20 20:44:00) > On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:26:10 +0100 Antoine Tenart wrote: > > + if (unlikely(kobj->state_initialized)) > > + return -EAGAIN; >=20 > we could do some weird stuff here like try to ignore the sysfs=20 > objects and "resynchronize" them before releasing rtnl. > Way to hacky to do now, but also debugging a transient EAGAIN > will be a major PITA. How about we add a netdev_warn_once() > here to leave a trace of what happened in the logs? I'm not sure as the above can happen in normal conditions, although removing and re-adding queues very shortly might be questionable? On the other hand I get your point and that might not happen very frequently under normal conditions and that's just because I'm hammering the thing for testing. It feel a bit weird to warn something that is not unexpected behavior, but if you still prefer having a warn_once for better UX I can add it, let me know.