netdev - Re: [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: release lock for the duration of ixgbe_suspend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 13:35:07 -0400
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: release lock for the duration of
 ixgbe_suspend_close()



On 05/18/2018 01:28 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 05/18/2018 02:37 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> 
>>       * parallelized this function, so drop lock for the
>>>
>>>     Parallelizing? Else the sentence doesn't parse for me. :-)
> 
>    My comment hardly makes sense when you removed all the context...

Hi Sergei,

Ah gotcha:

+        /* Suspend takes a long time, device_shutdown may be
+         * parallelized this function, so drop lock for the 

The comment should have been:

ixgbe_close_suspend() takes a long time, and device_shutdown may parallelize ixgbe_shutdown(), therefore drop lock to allow concurrent execution of ixgbe_close_suspend().

Anyway, as I said, this patch should be dropped.

Thank you,
Pavel