[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2r3cdvokyuylakhv7d6wjrytatvusdr46grrjuaiohcvnzclyf@ph3hc73wf5gv>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:24:53 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net] Revert "net: phy: Fix race condition on link status
change"
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:13:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > So i suggest you change phy_process_error() to remove the lock.
> >
> > This doable.
> >
> > > Maybe
> > > add a test to ensure the lock is actually held, and do a phydev_err()
> > > if not.
> >
> > This can't be done since phy_state_machine() calls phy_error_precise()
> > which calls phy_process_error() with no phy_device.lock held. Printing the
> > error in that case would mean an error in the Networking PHY subsystem
> > itself.
> >
> > Do you suggest to take the lock before calling phy_error_precise() then?
>
> Thanks for digging into the details.
>
> phy_error_precise() is used in exactly one place. So i would actually
> put the lock inside it. And maybe move the comment about not using the
> function with the lock already held here :-)
Ok. I'll resubmit the patch tomorrow with the RFC status dropped.
-Serge(y)
>
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists