On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:43:01PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Understood, but really dev_base_lock can only be removed _after_ we > convert all usages to something else (mutex based, and preferably not > the global RTNL)
Sure. A large part of getting rid of dev_base_lock seems to be just: - deleting the bogus usage from mlx4 infiniband and friends - converting procfs, sysfs and friends to netdev_lists_mutex - renaming whatever is left into something related to the RFC 2863 operstate. > Focusing on dev_base_lock seems a distraction really. Maybe. But it's going to be awkward to explain in words what the locking rules are, when the read side can take optionally the dev_base_lock, RCU, or netdev_lists_lock, and the write side can take optionally the dev_base_lock, RTNL, or netdev_lists_lock. Not to mention that anybody grepping for dev_base_lock will see the current usage and not make a lot out of it. I'm not really sure how to order this rework to be honest.
