On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 14:22 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > 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...
I could agree with that. The reason it seems to do that is that it invokes some other ifup/down related code in suspend/resume... On the other hand it also seems a bit odd to do something as unrelated to networking as runtime PM (which you can also trigger through various other paths such as sysfs) under RTNL, holding RTNL for longer than seems necessary, and creating more contention on it? johannes _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
