[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11386c9a-6c07-2274-3d8f-eaa471b182df@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:15:10 -0500
From: Thinh Tran <thinhtr@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: aelior@...vell.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
manishc@...vell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, skalluru@...vell.com,
drc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, abdhalee@...ibm.com, simon.horman@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bnx2x: Fix error recovering in switch configuration
Hi,
Thanks for the review.
On 8/1/2023 3:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 17:47 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> @@ -4987,6 +4983,12 @@ void bnx2x_tx_timeout(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int txqueue)
>>> {
>>> struct bnx2x *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
>>>
>>> + /* Immediately indicate link as down */
>>> + bp->link_vars.link_up = 0;
>>> + bp->force_link_down = true;
>>> + netif_carrier_off(dev);
>>> + BNX2X_ERR("Indicating link is down due to Tx-timeout\n");
>>
>> Is this code move to make the shutdown more immediate?
>> That could also be a separate patch.
>
> Note that the original code run under the rtnl lock and this is not
> lockless, it that safe?
>
Yes, it is safe.
The caller, dev_watchdog() is a holding a spin_lock of the net_device.
> Cheers,
>
> Paolo
>
Thanks,
Thinh Tran
Powered by blists - more mailing lists