On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 22:32:25 +0100 Johannes Berg wrote: > Well, I was hoping that > > (a) ethtool folks / Jakub would comment if this makes sense, but I > don't see a good reason to do things the other way around (other > than "code is simpler"); and
My opinion on RPM is pretty uneducated. But taking rtnl_lock to resume strikes me as shortsighted. RPM functionality should be fairly self-contained, and deserving of a separate lock. Or at the very least having looked at the igc RPM code in the past, I'm a bit cautious about bending the core to fit it, as it is hardly a model... > (b) Intel wired folks could help out with getting the patch across the > finish line, seeing how their driver needs it :) I think the dev > get/put needs to use the newer API, but I didn't immediately see > how that works locally in a function without an allocated tracker _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
