On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 08:13:55 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:21:22AM CEST, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:47:49 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> @@ -6953,9 +7089,33 @@ int devlink_compat_switch_id_get(struct net_device
> >> *dev,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void __net_exit devlink_pernet_exit(struct net *net)
> >> +{
> >> + struct devlink *devlink;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&devlink_mutex);
> >> + list_for_each_entry(devlink, &devlink_list, list)
> >> + if (net_eq(devlink_net(devlink), net))
> >> + devlink_netns_change(devlink, &init_net);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&devlink_mutex);
> >> +}
> >
> >Just to be sure - this will not cause any locking issues?
> >Usually the locking order goes devlink -> rtnl
>
> rtnl is not taken. Do I miss something?
Probably not, just double checking.
