From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068FDC0650E for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD60C218A4 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726945AbfGCNkD (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:40:03 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:38420 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725943AbfGCNkD (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:40:03 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hifUJ-0000ZL-GZ; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:39:55 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/15] ethtool: support for netlink notifications From: Johannes Berg To: Michal Kubecek , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Jiri Pirko , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , John Linville , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:39:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4dcac81783de8686edefa262a1db75f9e961b123.1562067622.git.mkubecek@suse.cz> References: <4dcac81783de8686edefa262a1db75f9e961b123.1562067622.git.mkubecek@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-3.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 13:50 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > +static bool ethnl_ok __read_mostly; Not sure it makes a big difference, but it could probably be __ro_after_init instead? johannes