[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6a6b552-95a7-8353-54c8-fa804f9366a1@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:49:47 +0200
From: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: phy: Correctly process PHY_HALTED in
phy_stop_machine()"
On 31/08/2017 18:57, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> And the race is between phy_detach() setting phydev->attached_dev = NULL
> and phy_state_machine() running in PHY_HALTED state and calling
> netif_carrier_off().
I must be missing something.
(Since a thread cannot race against itself.)
phy_disconnect calls phy_stop_machine which
1) stops the work queue from running in a separate thread
2) calls phy_state_machine *synchronously*
which runs the PHY_HALTED case with everything well-defined
end of phy_stop_machine
phy_disconnect only then calls phy_detach()
which makes future calls of phy_state_machine perilous.
This all happens in the same thread, so I'm not yet
seeing where the race happens?
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists