[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240402150111.170dc2cc@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:01:11 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Uwe
Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Andy
Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Ronald Wahl
<ronald.wahl@...itan.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: ks8851: Handle softirqs at the end of IRQ
thread to fix hang
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:38:26 +0200 Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> ks->netdev->stats.rx_packets++;
> >> ks->netdev->stats.rx_bytes += rxlen;
> >> @@ -325,11 +325,15 @@ static void ks8851_rx_pkts(struct ks8851_net *ks)
> >> */
> >> static irqreturn_t ks8851_irq(int irq, void *_ks)
> >> {
> >> + bool need_bh_off = !(hardirq_count() | softirq_count());
> >
> > I don't think IRQ / RT developers look approvingly at uses of such
> > low level macros in drivers.
>
> I _think_ the need_bh_off will be always true as Ratheesh suggested, so
> this can be dropped. I will test that before doing a V2.
Quite possibly, seems like a reasonable fix if we don't have to make it
conditional.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists