[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240904130223.py2yxmwo5kp6yvnu@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:02:23 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, linux@...linux.org.uk, xfr@...look.com,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/7] net: stmmac: refactor FPE verification
process
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 05:21:18PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote:
> +static void stmmac_fpe_verify_timer_arm(struct stmmac_fpe_cfg *fpe_cfg)
> +{
> + struct ethtool_mm_state *state = &fpe_cfg->state;
> +
> + if (state->pmac_enabled && state->tx_enabled &&
> + state->verify_enabled &&
> + state->verify_status != ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_FAILED &&
> + state->verify_status != ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED) {
> + /* give caller a chance to release the spinlock */
> + mod_timer(&fpe_cfg->verify_timer, jiffies + 1);
> + }
> +}
Why do you need to give the caller a chance to release the spinlock?
Isn't the timer code blocked anyway, as stmmac_fpe_verify_timer_arm()
runs under irqsoff?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists