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?
