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 4CBE812E5D for ; Wed, 21 May 2025 17:59:01 +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=1747850342; cv=none; b=sdBmBkhZUYyoHK/mJlHe5IiPDsYyJS2/VCkscz+eGO9lXvg1euqhET5MZCyzuk9f99qU44nWXYjZW1MFKHQ1L9l4G3wbJHKQA1h+V8BDEzlSEdDCWaYcS1PVO7Ju9E06+OEq24Ai5LsRu4w9lA1TUag9r4ZQncZuu/TXnzdfIYc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747850342; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DpZwlLiToSgP9UvVjo312MLp7OeeAiuTw+KE77HGMKU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kTi8ohgE2sotQSjknT/TG3DX2OJRmTYNhTCK9coLyDDkUmVzDeVAwyJWgCYhCnNJjZzL9fM/eVCB76XK7yHLtih8ls2AiGKReLhQbm1FYZhH03ATqIxdz5lEikm0wJ44n/rqhr3+5xb7PQ0ljS3MqDaFk3+LjmNEaYP0Z0GZJww= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=unpLTJ8X; 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="unpLTJ8X" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75DE2C4CEE4; Wed, 21 May 2025 17:59:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1747850341; bh=DpZwlLiToSgP9UvVjo312MLp7OeeAiuTw+KE77HGMKU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=unpLTJ8XMfcI4nGGsThKNl9iRci5vPjSXhV//S4asNrz7Xp69Er+QMNi35k76iozw of/NnJrYZoB5jLQTveq0dvbxDxD2R0dlMH3RN7O7u/smwXrVaoG18z/bQ1jai6jjo/ /McFvC4Ic/974s05qtwu3jEonCXvX8EAtzHKuWWSALYjT6jTG213xDs4aPMUHuyyIl FEia6IjD1Fc95/pfKwRTkYyK10Laz6KbNE7GnZy8HppplMbDLtg1BDh9bwx8ce3PO6 JU51kDgAydtM1WTihb12odjbh1ZcIysu0ARuYLc/6ff3rUg8izSIZgfUfJYiM6NoWh 9Jn9YYrxto84A== Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 10:59:00 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Jiri Pirko , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Hillf Danton , Network Development Subject: Re: [PATCH (EXPERIMENTAL)] team: replace term lock with rtnl lock Message-ID: <20250521105900.3111b6c1@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <9a12cdc9-1332-4ae5-8639-c71c91336b99@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <20250517080948.3c20db08@kernel.org> <9a12cdc9-1332-4ae5-8639-c71c91336b99@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> 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 Wed, 21 May 2025 22:54:51 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2025/05/18 0:09, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > I think this was a trylock because there are places we try to cancel > > this work while already holding the lock. > > I checked rtnl_unlock(), and it seems to me that rtnl_unlock() calls mutex_unlock() before > doing operations that might sleep. Then, rtnl_unlock() itself won't increase possibility of > rtnl_trylock() failure... I don't think you understood my comment :(