> -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 17:19 > To: Guedes, Andre <andre.gue...@intel.com> > Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>; da...@davemloft.net; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; nhor...@redhat.com; sassm...@redhat.com; > Brown, Aaron F <aaron.f.br...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [net-next 05/13] igc: Check __IGC_PTP_TX_IN_PROGRESS instead > of ptp_tx_skb > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:07:00 -0700 Andre Guedes wrote: > > > What if timeout happens, igc_ptp_tx_hang() starts cleaning up and > > > then irq gets delivered half way through? Perhaps we should just add > > > a spin lock around the ptp_tx_s* fields? > > > > Yep, I think this other scenario is possible indeed, and we should > > probably protect ptp_tx_s* with a lock. Thanks for pointing that out. > > In fact, it seems this issue can happen even with current net-next code. > > > > Since that issue is not introduced by this patch, would it be OK we > > move forward with it, and fix the issue in a separate patch? > > Fine by me.
Since your fine with Andre providing a follow-up patch to fix the issue of missing locks, I will go ahead and submit v2 of the series with the small fixup in patch 1 that Dave pointed out.
