[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250805164747.40e63f6d@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 16:47:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ammar Faizi
<ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linux
Netdev Mailing List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux USB Mailing List
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Armando Budianto <sprite@...weeb.org>,
gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, John Ernberg
<john.ernberg@...ia.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: usbnet: Fix the wrong netif_carrier_on()
call placement
On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 01:40:37 +0300 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So my gut feel is that the
>
> if (test_and_clear_bit(EVENT_LINK_CARRIER_ON, &dev->flags))
> netif_carrier_on(dev->net);
>
> should actually be done outside that if-statement entirely, because it
> literally ends up changing the thing that if-statement is testing.
Right. I think it should be before the if (!netif_carrier_ok(dev->net))
Ammar, could you retest and repost that, since we haven't heard from
John?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists