[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160218.152711.37460017116970297.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:27:11 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, emil.s.tantilov@...el.com,
zyjzyj2000@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com, dingtianhong@...wei.com,
gospo@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex
information
From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:25:52 -0800
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> This was done historically in bonding, but the call to
>>> bond_update_speed_duplex was removed in commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding:
>>> don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks"), as it might sleep
>>> under lock. Later, the locking was changed to only hold RTNL, and so
>>> after commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex()
>>> under spinlocks") this call is again safe.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
>>> Cc: dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>>> Fixes: 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
>>
>>Applied, thanks Jay.
>
> Rereading the above, I just noticed that I put the wrong commit
> into the fixes tag (and the "Later, the locking was changed" text); the
> correct fixes tag should be:
>
> Fixes: 4cb4f97b7e36 ("bonding: rebuild the lock use for bond_mii_monitor()")
>
> Kernels between 876254ae2758 and 4cb4f97b7e36 should not have
> this patch applied, as it might sleep under lock.
>
> Sorry for the error,
Ok, thanks for the info.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists