netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Dumazet, Eric" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"andrew+netdev@lunn.ch" <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	"horms@kernel.org" <horms@kernel.org>,
	"sdf@fomichev.me" <sdf@fomichev.me>,
	"hramamurthy@google.com" <hramamurthy@google.com>,
	"kuniyu@amazon.com" <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
	"Damato, Joe" <jdamato@fastly.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance locking info per ops struct
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 16:39:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250410163908.07975fa9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB508998C288EEE2BFD2D45F44D6B72@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 22:35:43 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > > Does this mean we don't allow drivers which support
> > > netdev_queue_mgmt_ops but don't set request_ops_lock? Or does it mean
> > > that supporting netdev_queue_mgmt_ops and/or netdev shapers
> > > automatically implies request_ops_lock? Or is there some other
> > > behavioral difference?
> > >
> > > From the wording this sounds like its enforced via code, and it seems
> > > reasonable to me that we wouldn't allow these without setting
> > > request_ops_lock to true...  
> > 
> > "request" is for drivers to optionally request.
> > If the driver supports queue or shaper APIs it doesn't have a say.  
> 
> Which is to say: if you support either of the new APIs, or you
> automatically get ops locking regardless of what request_ops_lock is,
> so that if you do support one of those interfaces, there is no
> behavioral difference between setting or not setting request_ops_lock.
> 
> Ok, I think that's reasonable.

Right, and FWIW we may one day actually make the request_ops_lock 
bit be _the_ decider and auto-set it based on op presence when netdev
is registered. Purely to simplify the condition in netdev_need_ops_lock().
For now it isn't that. I was worried if I go into too much detail here
we'll then forget to update it and stale docs are worse than no docs :(

  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-10 23:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-08 19:59 [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: depend on instance lock for queue related netlink ops Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] net: avoid potential race between netdev_get_by_index_lock() and netns switch Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/8] net: designate XSK pool pointers in queues as "ops protected" Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] netdev: add "ops compat locking" helpers Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] netdev: don't hold rtnl_lock over nl queue info get when possible Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 5/8] xdp: double protect netdev->xdp_flags with netdev->lock Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 22:15   ` Harshitha Ramamurthy
2025-04-09 18:40   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 6/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for xdp features Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10 17:10   ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-04-11  2:10     ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11  2:23       ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 17:41         ` Stanislav Fomichev
2025-04-11 19:19           ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11  2:36       ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance locking info per ops struct Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-09  2:59   ` Joe Damato
2025-04-10  6:01   ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10 16:08     ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10 22:35       ` Keller, Jacob E
2025-04-10 23:39         ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2025-04-11 21:26           ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 8/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for qstats in ops locked drivers Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10  5:23   ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10 23:46     ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 21:29       ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10  0:40 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: depend on instance lock for queue related netlink ops patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250410163908.07975fa9@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=hramamurthy@google.com \
    --cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
    --cc=jdamato@fastly.com \
    --cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).