Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200505140231.16600-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200505140231.16600-6-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20200505103105.1c8b0ce3@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAMRc=Mf0ipaeLKhHCZaq2YeZKzi=QBAse7bEz2hHxXN5OL=ptg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200506101236.25a13609@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAMpxmJWckQdKvUGFDAJ1WMtD9WoGWmGe3kyKYhcfRT2nOB93xw@mail.gmail.com> <20200507095315.1154a1a6@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200507095315.1154a1a6@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 19:03:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJUEk3itZs4HujJOXUiL80kmEvGBvLF0NFc2UQoVDVTWRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] net: core: provide devm_register_netdev()
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@mediatek.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Fabien Parent <fparent@baylibre.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

czw., 7 maj 2020 o 18:53 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> napisa=C5=82(a):
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 11:25:01 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > =C5=9Br., 6 maj 2020 o 19:12 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 08:39:47 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > wt., 5 maj 2020 o 19:31 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue,  5 May 2020 16:02:25 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Provide devm_register_netdev() - a device resource managed vari=
ant
> > > > > > of register_netdev(). This new helper will only work for net_de=
vice
> > > > > > structs that have a parent device assigned and are devres manag=
ed too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > > > > > index 522288177bbd..99db537c9468 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > > > > > @@ -9519,6 +9519,54 @@ int register_netdev(struct net_device *d=
ev)
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_netdev);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +struct netdevice_devres {
> > > > > > +     struct net_device *ndev;
> > > > > > +};
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there really a need to define a structure if we only need a po=
inter?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no need for that, but it really is more readable this way.
> > > > Also: using a pointer directly doesn't save us any memory nor code
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > I don't care either way but devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs() and co. are usi=
ng
> > > the double pointer directly. Please make things consistent. Either do
> > > the same, or define the structure in some header and convert other
> > > helpers to also make use of it.
> >
> > In order to use devres_find() to check if struct net_device is managed
> > in devm_register_netdev() I need to know the address of the release
> > function used by devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs(). Do you mind if I move all
> > networking devres routines (currently only devm_alloc_etherdev_mqs())
> > into a separate .c file (e.g. under net/devres.c)?
>
> To implement Edwin's suggestion? Makes sense, but I'm no expert, let's
> also CC Heiner since he was asking about it last time.

Yes, because taking the last bit of priv_flags from net_device seems
to be more controversial but if net maintainers are fine with that I
can simply go with the current approach.

Bart