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.
