On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:45:58 +1000 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:31:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I don't see it here (probably because we use different NICs).
> > But does this help?
>
> Thinking about it again I don't think it will help you because if your
> carrier started out as off then it would've been considered an urgent
> event anyway.
>
> So what NIC are you using? And where abouts in the boot process is it
> hanging? For exmaple, is it hanging when obtaining a DHCP address?
>
> In any case, this patch can't hurt. So here's one with a changelog:
>
> [NET] link_watch: Eliminate potential delay on wrap-around
hm, that fixed it. Do we know why? ;)
btw, looking at the code:
clear_bit(LW_RUNNING, &linkwatch_flags);
spin_lock_irq(&lweventlist_lock);
next = lweventlist;
lweventlist = NULL;
spin_unlock_irq(&lweventlist_lock);
while (next) {
struct net_device *dev = next;
next = dev->link_watch_next;
lweventlist_lock protects lweventlist and every netdev's ->link_watch_next.
But this code is walking that singly-linked list outside the lock and
after clearing LW_RUNNING. What stops this singly-linked list from getting
altered by another thread of control while this code is traversing it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
