[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221116015528.25334-1-yinjun.zhang@corigine.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:55:28 +0800
From:   Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To:     arefev@...mel.ru
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        trufanov@...mel.ru, vfh@...mel.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lag_conf: Added pointer
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:56:37 +0300, Denis Arefev wrote:
> <...>
> @@ -308,6 +308,8 @@ static void nfp_fl_lag_do_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  
>  		acti_netdevs = kmalloc_array(entry->slave_cnt,
>  					     sizeof(*acti_netdevs), GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!acti_netdevs)
> +		 break;
I think we need give other entries and this entry itself one more chance by:
```
if (!acti_netdevs) {
	schedule_delayed_work(&lag->work, NFP_FL_LAG_DELAY);
	continue:
}
```
>  
>  		/* Include sanity check in the loop. It may be that a bond has
>  		 * changed between processing the last notification and the
Powered by blists - more mailing lists