linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [net-next] stmmac: use netif_set_real_num_{rx,tx}

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     treding@...dia.com
Cc:     clabbe.montjoie@...il.com, arnd@...db.de, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [net-next] stmmac: use
 netif_set_real_num_{rx,tx}_queues

From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:34:36 +0200

> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:45:36AM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:01:05PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> > Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:48:21 +0200
>> > 
>> > > A driver must not access the two fields directly but should instead use
>> > > the helper functions to set the values and keep a consistent internal
>> > > state:
>> > > 
>> > > ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c: In function 'stmmac_dvr_probe':
>> > > ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c:4083:8: error: 'struct net_device' has no member named 'real_num_rx_queues'; did you mean 'real_num_tx_queues'?
>> > > 
>> > > Fixes: a8f5102af2a7 ("net: stmmac: TX and RX queue priority configuration")
>> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> > 
>> > Applied.
>> 
>> This break my revert patch. (since it patch ("net: stmmac: enable multiple buffers").
>> Since dwmac-sunxi is still broken, what can I do ? send two revert patch ? or adapt the reverting patch.
> 
> Have you tried if the kcalloc() patch I sent on Tuesday fixes things the
> issues introduced by the multiple buffers patch? Niklas reported that it
> restores functionality on his setup.

I think he said yesterday that he did indeed test all of your patches and it
did not fix things for him.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149076922813085&w=2

I am going to revert the enable multiple buffers commit, and I would ask that
all involved parties work together in the background to resolve all of this.

Thank you.