Re: [net-next,3/5] ice: migrate to netdev ops lock

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:10:49 +0100 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > Does ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi() need to acquire the netdev lock before calling
> > ice_dis_vsi_locked() and ice_ena_vsi()?
> > 
> > Looking at the disable path, ice_dis_vsi_locked() calls ice_vsi_close()
> > which goes through ice_down() -> ice_napi_disable_all() ->
> > napi_disable_locked(), and that function has netdev_assert_locked(n->dev) in
> > net/core/dev.c. Similarly, ice_vsi_close() calls
> > ice_vsi_clear_napi_queues_locked() -> netif_napi_set_irq_locked() which
> > checks netdev_assert_locked_or_invisible().
> > 
> > The enable path calls ice_ena_vsi() -> ice_open_internal() ->
> > ice_vsi_open(), and that now calls ice_vsi_set_napi_queues_locked() ->
> > netif_napi_set_irq_locked() (requires netdev lock) and ice_up_complete() ->
> > ice_napi_enable_all() -> napi_enable_locked().
> > 
> > The old code called ice_dis_vsi(vsi, locked) and ice_ena_vsi(vsi, locked)
> > where the old ice_dis_vsi() only dealt with rtnl_lock. The new code switches
> > to _locked variants that require the netdev lock but does not acquire it.
> > 
> > Callers ice_pf_dcb_cfg() and ice_dcb_process_lldp_set_mib_change() hold
> > rtnl_lock but not the netdev lock.  
> 
> Doesn't the DCB core take the netdev lock just like netdev_ops? Or it
> only takes the RTNL?

DCB is not covered by the instance lock.. but TBH purely because 
I just always forget it exists. Feel free to make it take the lock
if that makes more sense.