[ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[Jakub Kicinski]

Hi!

The bi-weekly call is scheduled for tomorrow at 8:30 am (PT) / 
5:30 pm (~EU). Last call before the merge window. No agenda
items have been submitted so far.

See you at https://bbb.lwn.net/b/jak-wkr-seg-hjn

Re: [ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[Andrew Lunn]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 07:52:57AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> The bi-weekly call is scheduled for tomorrow at 8:30 am (PT) / 
> 5:30 pm (~EU). Last call before the merge window. No agenda
> items have been submitted so far.
> 
> See you at https://bbb.lwn.net/b/jak-wkr-seg-hjn

Maybe we can have a quick discussion and poll about:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240507090520.284821-1-wei.fang@nxp.com/

Do we want patches like this? What do people think about guard() vs
scoped_guard().

	Andrew

Re: [ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 5/7/24 16:05, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 07:52:57AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The bi-weekly call is scheduled for tomorrow at 8:30 am (PT) /
>> 5:30 pm (~EU). Last call before the merge window. No agenda
>> items have been submitted so far.
>>
>> See you at https://bbb.lwn.net/b/jak-wkr-seg-hjn
> 
> Maybe we can have a quick discussion and poll about:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240507090520.284821-1-wei.fang@nxp.com/
> 
> Do we want patches like this? What do people think about guard() vs
> scoped_guard().
> 
> 	Andrew
> 
Was it discussed? Any conclusions?

Re: [ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[Andrew Lunn]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:11:11PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 5/7/24 16:05, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 07:52:57AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > The bi-weekly call is scheduled for tomorrow at 8:30 am (PT) /
> > > 5:30 pm (~EU). Last call before the merge window. No agenda
> > > items have been submitted so far.
> > > 
> > > See you at https://bbb.lwn.net/b/jak-wkr-seg-hjn
> > 
> > Maybe we can have a quick discussion and poll about:
> > 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240507090520.284821-1-wei.fang@nxp.com/
> > 
> > Do we want patches like this? What do people think about guard() vs
> > scoped_guard().
> > 
> > 	Andrew
> > 
> Was it discussed? Any conclusions?

Sorry, i should of submitted a netdev FAQ Documentation patch by now.

The summary is: scoped_guard() is O.K. for new code. guard() is too
magical, and should not be used. Neither should be used in old code,
where we perceive a danger it will actually cause more bugs when back
porting fixes.

We do acknowledge these mechanisms could be useful at avoiding bugs,
but want to wait and see how they work out in practice. It could be
the restrictions on reworking old code is lifted, and guard() allowed,
in a few years.

  Andrew

Re: [ANN] netdev call - May 7th

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:11:11 +0200 Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> Was it discussed? Any conclusions?

Y'all keep reinventing and working around locks with gazillion flags.
I really hope the step 0 for you will be to figure out a sane locking
scheme :( guard() is not gonna change the math.