From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC10C4332F for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239896AbjADQPO (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2023 11:15:14 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37254 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239895AbjADQOp (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2023 11:14:45 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91D1A42E1D for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id l26so24383570wme.5 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:14:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=resnulli-us.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uTjf/6W4GhV8Irl4//iLBJvZ3uSMD2mcapAXLr0Opbg=; b=J7EGMUhgJvBFkWGV5lKmsLYJ8CY5xnugIWgJt2I2bTLoHwDy1ILZFkPpDC1aAJV3qY Lb871UUSYIGpfMCTZmheW7HnKqxfy+DqU4SV1zMk4Hjn94PiC+HaVfP1L0r27/PCVKW2 3FD+vBC8c8yA9GD95E911IGjForztVTkvLoUPBGNR01++2rvSOUY83uL0mkGiKY+adR4 1HbrdZ7cfQMvh4B5kdD8jXo2NJS1RJW6cuPXPcZWuVWzm/7grX4kL5bjkN4GRRH4rZLA gv9Hglycw5O4Ul94PyjpQwoD2NZ381EKDepkmSN1rK8zHFPSd81lrssRsGL6S0Qk3QAv UY9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=uTjf/6W4GhV8Irl4//iLBJvZ3uSMD2mcapAXLr0Opbg=; b=TPGxHp+QA4AeMX/TyWuUE4ewGPZh64rTdYpO9d2vVCLrtXl8pWOi0iSBcLxF0bUJx7 zua/yX2dHGW/1QF+RgNZyufjCimA12icpXSfPY7Zp5ikRU6wslZnLW6FTnk0Lc4mB17t b9ot0PPBekm0NhjXjpQlqjUdoGA0HUTefjfLE5vvnSP4zn4rQ3+aCw0maxklOpyyZC1R rKpCqUEVU1EWDifEiasyyvGKTOsM/f7hKqEkPshuEmR47q4rS6itzOPsOSceq8J8y/KP a82mc0LFTVBH22uAhYQ7VPfEZWHJtHw8XnB6PEPZx0xbAnlZb2/7N36e57DUXQxQUd5G zJ4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqzebFK2qc3h4gEo6mvniBcRb30/su502jjK/C7ia66GtwteY6I Pcg1ifLc7fFW4B2rUnYryewzcpV6lvoJqeOR/Cc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXtztem5UTop5goAANvP3rjGDJuelcN6nLO70tNAXY5ulzv8UGlFQMp9nDgmrYddseLjBgXQkw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3495:b0:3c6:e62e:2e74 with SMTP id a21-20020a05600c349500b003c6e62e2e74mr34609244wmq.15.1672848853130; Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:14:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([86.61.181.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v9-20020a05600c444900b003d997e5e679sm32472550wmn.14.2023.01.04.08.14.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:14:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:14:11 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: jacob.e.keller@intel.com, leon@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 04/10] devlink: always check if the devlink instance is registered Message-ID: References: <20221217011953.152487-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20221217011953.152487-5-kuba@kernel.org> <20230102150514.6321d2ae@kernel.org> <20230103184959.621f4b9c@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230103184959.621f4b9c@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:49:59AM CET, kuba@kernel.org wrote: >On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:26:12 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Why "alive"? To be consistent with the existing terminology, how about >> >> to name it devl_is_registered()? >> > >> >I dislike the similarity to device_is_registered() which has very >> >different semantics. I prefer alive. >> >> Interesting. Didn't occur to me to look into device.h when reading >> devlink.c code. I mean, is device_register() behaviour in sync with >> devlink_register? >> >> Your alive() helper is checking "register mark". It's an odd and unneded >> inconsistency in newly added code :/ > >Alright. > >> >> Also, "devl_" implicates that it should be called with devlink instance >> >> lock held, so probably devlink_is_registered() would be better. >> > >> >I'm guessing you realized this isn't correct later on. >> >> From what I see, no need to hold instance mutex for xa mark checking, >> alhough I understand why you want the helper to be called with the lock. >> Perhaps assert and a little comment would make this clear? > >I'll add the comment. The assert would have to OR holding the subobject >locks. Is that what you had in mind? Ah right, the subobject locks. That will go away I'm sure. Yes, that is what I had in mind. After that, we can put assert here.