Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:04:41 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 08/22] ethtool: support for netlink
 notifications
Message-ID: <20190327100441.GE6979@nanopsycho>
References: <cover.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <3578e5f334acf11b84e75d0ee41c072340a7b085.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20190326163400.GC4958@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20190326181720.GO26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <20190327093843.GB6979@nanopsycho>
 <20190327095148.GE15396@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190327095148.GE15396@lunn.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:51:48AM CET, andrew@lunn.ch wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:38:43AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:17:20PM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>> >On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:08:18PM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>> >> >+void ethtool_notify(struct net_device *dev, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
>> >> >+		    unsigned int cmd, u32 req_mask, const void *data)
>> >> >+{
>> >> >+	if (unlikely(!ethnl_ok))
>> >> 
>> >> Why do you need this?
>> >
>> >If genetlink family registration fails, ethtool_notify() can be still
>> >called from other code (e.g. the ethtool ioctl interface). In such case,
>> >better bail out right away than fail somewhere later (probably after
>> >preparing the message which can't be sent anyway).
>> 
>> Again, haven't seen this in any other gen netlink implementation. Why do
>> they not need it?
>
>Hi Jiri
>
>All other gen netlink kill the machine dead if they cannot register

Wait, what do you mean be "kill the machine dead"?

>the socket.

Example:
static int __init devlink_init(void)
{
        return genl_register_family(&devlink_nl_family);
}