On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 09:46 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote: > > That sounds right too; one could argue if your fix is orthogonal to that > or not. I would say that your fix makes core net code more robust > against drivers from past millennia. :) > igc folks are notified, no idea how much time it would take to propose > a fix.
Maybe it should be on whoever added runtime pm to ethtool ;-) Heiner, the igc driver was already doing this when you added pm_runtime_get_sync() ops, was there a discussion at the time, or just missed? I really don't know any of this ... > > Well, according to the checks, the patch really should use > > netdev_get_by_name() and netdev_put()? But I don't know how to do that > > on short-term stack thing ... maybe it doesn't have to? > > Nice to have such checks :) > You need some &netdevice_tracker, perhaps one added into struct net > or other place that would allow to track it at ethtool level. Yeah but that's dynamic? Seems weird to add something to allocations for something released in the same function ... > "short term stack thing" does not relieve us from good coding practices, > but perhaps "you just replaced __dev_get_by_name() call by > dev_get_by_name()" to fix a bug would ;) - with transition to tracked > alloc as a next series to be promised :) All I want is to know how ;) but I guess I can try to find examples. > anyway, I'm fresh here, and would love to know what others think about Not me, but me too ;-) johannes _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
