From: Dawid Osuchowski <dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Kalesh Anakkur Purayil <kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
Igor Bagnucki <igor.bagnucki@intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v2] ice: Add netif_device_attach/detach into PF reset flow
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:57:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cc23dde3-8298-4cd6-b2cd-7e9d7bb32d65@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZruzBXwsFswL3lUe@boxer>
On 13.08.2024 21:24, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Dawid Osuchowski wrote:
>> On 13.08.2024 13:49, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>> What about other intel drivers tho?
>>
>> I have not performed detailed analysis of other intel ethernet drivers in
>> this regard, but it is surely a topic worth investigating.
>
> If you could take some action upon this then it would be great. I'm always
> hesitating with providing the review tag against a change that already
> contains few of them, but given that I dedicated some time to look into
> that:
>
I got a valid concern from Kalesh (CCd) on the v1 thread
(https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAH-L+nOFqs-K5YzfrfmpRHbhDGM-+1ahhWh4NXATX1FqZiPVLQ@mail.gmail.com/)
about the attaching only if link is up.
On 14.08.2024 05:19, Kalesh Anakkur Purayil wrote:
> [Kalesh] Is there any reason to attach back the netdev only if link is
> up? IMO, you should attach the device back irrespective of physical
> link status. In ice_prepare_for_reset(), you are detaching the device
> unconditionally.
>
> I may be missing something here.
I agree with his suggestion to do the netif_device_attach() irrespective
of link being up. Should I sent a v3 with the change? I have already
tested that locally and it seems to fix the reported issue with NULL
pointer dereference as well.
--Dawid
> Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
>
>>
>> --Dawid
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dawid Osuchowski <dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Igor Bagnucki <igor.bagnucki@intel.com>,
Kalesh Anakkur Purayil <kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net v2] ice: Add netif_device_attach/detach into PF reset flow
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:57:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cc23dde3-8298-4cd6-b2cd-7e9d7bb32d65@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZruzBXwsFswL3lUe@boxer>
On 13.08.2024 21:24, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Dawid Osuchowski wrote:
>> On 13.08.2024 13:49, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>> What about other intel drivers tho?
>>
>> I have not performed detailed analysis of other intel ethernet drivers in
>> this regard, but it is surely a topic worth investigating.
>
> If you could take some action upon this then it would be great. I'm always
> hesitating with providing the review tag against a change that already
> contains few of them, but given that I dedicated some time to look into
> that:
>
I got a valid concern from Kalesh (CCd) on the v1 thread
(https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAH-L+nOFqs-K5YzfrfmpRHbhDGM-+1ahhWh4NXATX1FqZiPVLQ@mail.gmail.com/)
about the attaching only if link is up.
On 14.08.2024 05:19, Kalesh Anakkur Purayil wrote:
> [Kalesh] Is there any reason to attach back the netdev only if link is
> up? IMO, you should attach the device back irrespective of physical
> link status. In ice_prepare_for_reset(), you are detaching the device
> unconditionally.
>
> I may be missing something here.
I agree with his suggestion to do the netif_device_attach() irrespective
of link being up. Should I sent a v3 with the change? I have already
tested that locally and it seems to fix the reported issue with NULL
pointer dereference as well.
--Dawid
> Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
>
>>
>> --Dawid
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-12 12:50 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v2] ice: Add netif_device_attach/detach into PF reset flow Dawid Osuchowski
2024-08-12 12:50 ` Dawid Osuchowski
2024-08-12 16:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Larysa Zaremba
2024-08-12 16:11 ` Larysa Zaremba
2024-08-13 11:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Maciej Fijalkowski
2024-08-13 11:49 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2024-08-13 15:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Dawid Osuchowski
2024-08-13 15:31 ` Dawid Osuchowski
2024-08-13 19:24 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Maciej Fijalkowski
2024-08-13 19:24 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2024-08-14 10:57 ` Dawid Osuchowski [this message]
2024-08-14 10:57 ` Dawid Osuchowski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cc23dde3-8298-4cd6-b2cd-7e9d7bb32d65@linux.intel.com \
--to=dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com \
--cc=igor.bagnucki@intel.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.