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;
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:11:22 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, edwin.peer@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Require devlink lock during device
 reload
Message-ID: <20211101161122.37fbb99d@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
In-Reply-To: <YYBTg4nW2BIVadYE@shredder>
References: <9716f9a13e217a0a163b745b6e92e02d40973d2c.1635701665.git.leonro@nvidia.com>
        <YYABqfFy//g5Gdis@nanopsycho>
        <YYBTg4nW2BIVadYE@shredder>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:52:19 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>  
> > 
> > Looks fine to me.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>  
> 
> Traces from mlxsw / netdevsim below:

Thanks a lot for the testing Ido!

Would you mind giving my RFC a spin as well on your syzbot machinery?

Any input on the three discussion points there?

 (1) should we have a "locked" and "unlocked" API or use lock nesting?

 (2) should we expose devlink lock so that drivers can use devlink 
     as a framework for their locking needs?

 (3) should we let drivers take refs on the devlink instance?