RE: [PATCH net] net: txgbe: fix RTNL assertion warning when remove module

["Jiawen Wu" <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 2:22 PM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 10:16:34AM +0800, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 9:08 PM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 03:11:07PM +0800, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > > > For the copper NIC with external PHY, the driver called
> > > > phylink_connect_phy() during probe and phylink_disconnect_phy() during
> > > > remove. It caused an RTNL assertion warning in phylink_disconnect_phy()
> > > > upon module remove.
> > > >
> > > > To fix this, move the phylink connect/disconnect PHY to ndo_open/close.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be simpler to just wrap the phylink_disconnect_phy() in the
> > > remove function with rtnl_lock()..rtnl_unlock() ?
> >
> > This is also a solution. But I think it would be nice to unify with other drivers
> > that call the functions in ndo_open/close.
> 
> Both approaches are equally valid. Some network drivers attach the PHY
> at probe time (and thus can return -EPROBE_DEFER if the PHY is specified
> but not present). Others attach in .ndo_open which can only fail in this
> circumstance with no retry without userspace manually implementing that.
> 
> There are other advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

Hi,

So is it still recommended that add rtnl_lock()...rtnl_unlock() instead of moving it?