Jakub Kicinski [k...@kernel.org] wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:14:34 -0800 Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Use more consistent locking when reading/writing the adapter->state > > field. This patch set fixes a race condition during ibmvnic_open() > > where the adapter could be left in the PROBED state if a reset occurs > > at the wrong time. This can cause networking to not come up during > > boot and potentially require manual intervention in bringing up > > applications that depend on the network. > > Apologies for not having enough time to suggest details, but let me > state this again - the patches which fix bugs need to go into net with > Fixes tags, the refactoring needs to go to net-next without Fixes tags. > If there are dependencies, patches go to net first, then within a week > or so the reset can be posted for net-next, after net -> net-next merge.
Well, the patch set fixes a set of bugs - main one is a locking bug fixed in patch 6. Other bugs are more minor or corner cases. Fixing the locking bug requires some refactoring/simplifying/reordering checks so lock can be properly acquired. Because of the size/cleanup, should we treat it as "next" material? i.e should I just drop the Fixes tag and resend to net-next? Or can we ignore the size of patchset and treat it all as bug fixes? Appreciate your input. Thanks, Sukadev
