[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlWw3hJdOARzdl2S@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:24:30 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/3] net: stmmac: Prevent RGSMIIIS IRQs flood
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 12:02:57AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Without reading the GMAC_RGSMIIIS/MAC_PHYIF_Control_Status the IRQ line
> won't be de-asserted causing interrupt handler executed over and over. As
> a quick-fix let's just dummy-read the CSR for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
I think it would make sense to merge these into the patches that do the
conversion to avoid a git bisect hitting on a patch that causes an
interrupt storm. Any objection?
(I'm now converting these two in separate patches, so would need to
split this patch...)
Thanks.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists