On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:46, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> > > Hi Vladimir
> > >
> > > So you are suggesting this?
> > >
> > > > > + ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> > >
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Yes, basically this:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > in
> > Hi Vladimir
> >
> > So you are suggesting this?
> >
> > > > + ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Yes, basically this:
>
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 4c7f086a047b..6aff8cfc9cf1 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:30, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:33:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Cong Wang
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:33:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir Oltean
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's me with the stacked DSA devi
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:33 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir Oltean
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's me with the stacked DSA devices aga
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > >
> > > It's me with the stacked DSA devices again:
> >
> > It looks like DSA never uses netdev API to link master
> > device w
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Cong Wang wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > It's me with the stacked DSA devices again:
>
> It looks like DSA never uses netdev API to link master
> device with slave devices? If so, their dev->lower_level
> are always 1, t
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> It's me with the stacked DSA devices again:
It looks like DSA never uses netdev API to link master
device with slave devices? If so, their dev->lower_level
are always 1, therefore triggers this warning.
I think it should call one of the
Hi Cong, Taehee,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 00:54, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
> for example the following race condition still exists:
>
> CPU 0: CPU 1:
> (RCU read lock) (RTNL lock)
> dev_mc_seq_show()
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:03 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
>
> I agree with that.
> And, do you have any plan to replace netif_addr_lock_bh() with
> netif_addr_lock_nested()?
> (Of course, it needs BH handling code)
> I'm not sure but I think it would be needed.
Yeah, I agree it's needed. I have a patch n
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 06:33, Cong Wang wrote:
>
Hi Cong,
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi Cong :)
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:48 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 06:53
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Cong :)
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:48 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 06:53, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > + lockdep_set_class_and_subclass(&dev->
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Cong Wang wrote:
>
Hi Cong :)
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:48 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 06:53, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi Cong,
> > Thank you for this work!
> >
> > > The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:48 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 06:53, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Cong,
> Thank you for this work!
>
> > The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
> > for example the following race condition still exists:
> >
> > CPU 0:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 06:53, Cong Wang wrote:
>
Hi Cong,
Thank you for this work!
> The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
> for example the following race condition still exists:
>
> CPU 0: CPU 1:
> (RCU read lock) (RTNL lock)
>
From: Cong Wang
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:53:01 -0700
> The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
> for example the following race condition still exists:
>
> CPU 0:CPU 1:
> (RCU read lock) (RTNL lock)
> dev_mc_seq_show
The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
for example the following race condition still exists:
CPU 0: CPU 1:
(RCU read lock) (RTNL lock)
dev_mc_seq_show() netdev_update_lockdep_key()
-
17 matches
Mail list logo
