On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 05:28:40PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:13:58 +0000 Joe Damato wrote:
+/* must be called under rcu_read_lock(), because napi_by_id requires it */ +static struct napi_struct *__do_napi_by_id(unsigned int napi_id,
struct genl_info *info, int *err)+{
- struct napi_struct *napi;
- napi = napi_by_id(napi_id);
- if (napi) {
*err = 0;- } else {
NL_SET_BAD_ATTR(info->extack, info->attrs[NETDEV_A_NAPI_ID]);*err = -ENOENT;- }
- return napi;
+}
Thanks for the quick follow up! I vote we don't factor this out. I don't see what it buys us, TBH, normally we factor out code to avoid having to unlock before return, but this code doesn't have extra returns...
Just slap an rcu_read_lock / unlock around and that's it?
Sure sounds good.
Sorry for the noob question: should I break it up into two patches with one CCing stable and the other not like I did for this RFC?
Patch 1 definitely "feels" like a fixes + CC stable Patch 2 could be either net-next or a net + "fixes" without stable?
Feel free to repost soon.
Will do, just lmk on the above so I can submit it the correct way.
Thanks for the quick feedback.