On 05/21, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf > > Of Stanislav Fomichev > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 10:36 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; GR-Linux-NIC- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; intel-wired- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; oss- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: ASSERT_RTNL > > remove netif_set_real_num_{rx, tx}_queues > > > Can you consider more explicit title like: > net: remove redundant ASSERT_RTNL() in queue setup functions > ? > > > Existing netdev_ops_assert_locked takes care of asserting either > > netdev lock or RTNL. > > > I'd recommend rephrasing like: > The existing netdev_ops_assert_locked() already asserts that either > the RTNL lock or the per-device lock is held, making the explicit > ASSERT_RTNL() redundant.
Sure, will do, thanks!
