From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
"Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
"Reinette Chatre" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:59:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aV7JKsNpsmnf5oQL@agluck-desk3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221001205102.2319658-1-eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 01:51:02PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> +void __do_once_slow_done(bool *done, struct static_key_true *once_key,
> + struct module *mod)
> + __releases(once_mutex)
> +{
> + *done = true;
> + mutex_unlock(&once_mutex);
> + once_disable_jump(once_key, mod);
This seems to have been cut & pasted from __do_once_done(). But is there
a reason for the "sleepable" version to defer resetting the static key
in a work queue? Can't we just inline do:
BUG_ON(!static_key_enabled(once_key));
static_branch_disable(once_key);
> +}
-Tony
Credit to Reinette for raising this question. Blame me if I didn't spot
why a work queue is needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-07 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-01 20:51 [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts Eric Dumazet
2022-10-01 21:15 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-01 22:50 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-02 5:38 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-01 22:44 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-01 22:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-10-03 17:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-03 17:43 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 18:14 ` [PATCH] once: rename _SLOW to _SLEEPABLE Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 18:14 ` [PATCH net-next] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-03 22:50 ` [PATCH] " Eric Dumazet
2022-10-02 8:58 ` [PATCH net-next] once: add DO_ONCE_SLOW() for sleepable contexts Christophe Leroy
2022-10-03 12:40 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2026-01-07 20:59 ` Luck, Tony [this message]
2026-01-07 21:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-01-07 22:34 ` Luck, Tony
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=aV7JKsNpsmnf5oQL@agluck-desk3 \
--to=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/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