[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480a16fd-a1eb-4ea0-b859-5d874ecc3b15@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 23:06:08 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/7] net: ethernet: fs_enet: drop the
.adjust_link custom fs_ops
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/fs_enet-main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/fs_enet-main.c
> @@ -649,12 +649,7 @@ static void fs_adjust_link(struct net_device *dev)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->lock, flags);
> -
> - if (fep->ops->adjust_link)
> - fep->ops->adjust_link(dev);
> - else
> - generic_adjust_link(dev);
> -
> + generic_adjust_link(dev);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->lock, flags);
Holding a spinlock is pretty unusual. We are in thread context, and
the phydev mutex is held. Looking at generic_adjust_link, do any of
the fep->foo variables actually need protecting, particularly from
changes in interrupts context?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists