Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230922111247.497-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> <CANn89iJtrpVQZbeAezd7S4p_yCRSFzcsBMgW+y9YhxOrCv463A@mail.gmail.com>
 <65181064.050a0220.7887c.c7ee@mx.google.com> <CANn89iJqkpRu8rd_M7HCzaZQV5P_XTCzbKe5DOwnJkTRDZWEWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <651ab7b8.050a0220.e15ed.9d6a@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <651ab7b8.050a0220.e15ed.9d6a@mx.google.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:35:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CANn89iJqFC-Z3NZwT+CXEG7R9rc9g4LRwNm6Zm=nZKpD3Mon7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] net: introduce napi_is_scheduled helper
To:     Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>,
        Raju Rangoju <rajur@chelsio.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:29=E2=80=AFPM Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.=
com> wrote:

> Ehhh the idea here was to reduce code duplication since the very same
> test will be done in stmmac. So I guess this code cleanup is a NACK and
> I have to duplicate the test in the stmmac driver.

I simply wanted to add a comment in front of this function/helper,
advising not using it unless absolutely needed.

Thus my question "In which context is it safe to call this helper ?"

As long as it was private with a driver, I did not mind.

But if made public in include/linux/netdevice.h, I would rather not
have to explain
to future users why it can be problematic.