On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:35:15 +0100 Antoine Tenart wrote: > > > - For net-next, to resend patches 2 and 3 from v2 (they'll have to be > > > slightly reworked, to take into account the review from Alexander and > > > the rtnl lock). The patches can be sent once the ones for net land in > > > net-next. > > > > If the direction is to remove xps_map_mutex, why would we need patch 2? > > 🤔 > > Only the patches for net are needed to fix the race conditions. > > In addition to use the xps_map mutex, patches 2 and 3 from v2 factorize > the code into a single function, as xps_cpus_show and xps_rxqs_show > share the same logic. That would improve maintainability, but isn't > mandatory. > > Sorry, it was not very clear...
I like the cleanup, sorry I'm net very clear either. My understanding was that patch 2 was only needed to have access to the XPS lock, if we don't plan to use that lock netif_show_xps_queue() can stay in the sysfs file, right? I'm all for the cleanup and code reuse for rxqs, I'm just making sure I'm not missing anything. I wasn't seeing a reason to move netif_show_xps_queue(), that's all.
