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 F2247450FC for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 22:14:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="S9ZWMCw6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39882C433C7; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 22:14:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1696630487; bh=VQscCT1FF5BIhomC2IAQhNeDuLDU8zvde1vv2WzmG5Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S9ZWMCw6+Xe8MMCmPAJgBn2uDmjTHh2B4nVNB3a+lDa7FPahDhvLXq9yAX2Jk8ZWW hfdDfrf0eNOu57QU8wOR8PlC2rESPPVEOFldHiw0RrNlrBsaHoY3yDY80PdhJtrs2Q rdUfOvAc7DcR7T7bwcP+qBGBix+AcGnTZFzBMtZ42mhYGIWzIIKou4s01IPE02U3vt Lqmr+SgJMjhciBbn8X2CioCJNUI45reyAELQVRFQhZ/qMEHE8+agGxXnkoU1lHz5Lj sqBqNAk+yRpHGNcvDrQ6tBE8w9bsAvf12o6mkxcRzel2DkoTNVGIFtcSi6XO9KnFfD 7aHQw54R3JTDQ== Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:14:46 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, gal@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next] devlink: don't take instance lock for nested handle put Message-ID: <20231006151446.491b5965@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231003074349.1435667-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20231005183029.32987349@kernel.org> <20231006074842.4908ead4@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 19:07:34 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >The user creates a port on an instance A, which spawns instance B. > >Instance A links instance B to itself. > >Instance A cannot disappear before instance B disappears. > > It can. mlx5 port sf removal is very nice example of that. It just tells > the FW to remove the sf and returns. The actual SF removal is spawned > after that when processing FW events. Isn't the PF driver processing the "FW events"? A is PF here, and B is SF, are you saying that the PF devlink instance can be completely removed (not just unregistered, freed) before the SF instance is unregistered?