[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1364311249-14454-143-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:20:41 +0000
From: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 142/150] bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks
3.5.7.9 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
commit 876254ae2758d50dcb08c7bd00caf6a806571178 upstream.
bond_update_speed_duplex() might sleep while calling underlying slave's
routines. Move it out of atomic context in bond_enslave() and remove it
from bond_miimon_commit() - it was introduced by commit 546add79, however
when the slave interfaces go up/change state it's their responsibility to
fire NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_CHANGE events so that bonding can properly update
their speed.
I've tested it on all combinations of ifup/ifdown, autoneg/speed/duplex
changes, remote-controlled and local, on (not) MII-based cards. All changes
are visible.
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 2466847..a8406dc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -1737,6 +1737,8 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
bond_compute_features(bond);
+ bond_update_speed_duplex(new_slave);
+
read_lock(&bond->lock);
new_slave->last_arp_rx = jiffies -
@@ -1789,8 +1791,6 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
new_slave->link == BOND_LINK_DOWN ? "DOWN" :
(new_slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP ? "UP" : "BACK"));
- bond_update_speed_duplex(new_slave);
-
if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) && bond->params.primary[0]) {
/* if there is a primary slave, remember it */
if (strcmp(bond->params.primary, new_slave->dev->name) == 0) {
@@ -2471,8 +2471,6 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
bond_set_backup_slave(slave);
}
- bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
-
pr_info("%s: link status definitely up for interface %s, %u Mbps %s duplex.\n",
bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name,
slave->speed, slave->duplex ? "full" : "half");
--
1.8.1.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists