From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex information Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:25:52 -0800 Message-ID: <17965.1455827152@famine> References: <25869.1454962202@famine> <20160216.151448.1415574551982584505.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, emil.s.tantilov@intel.com, zyjzyj2000@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, dingtianhong@huawei.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:41479 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1947701AbcBRU0F (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:26:05 -0500 In-reply-to: <20160216.151448.1415574551982584505.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: [...] >> This was done historically in bonding, but the call to >> bond_update_speed_duplex was removed in commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding: >> don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks"), as it might sleep >> under lock. Later, the locking was changed to only hold RTNL, and so >> after commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() >> under spinlocks") this call is again safe. >> >> Tested-by: "Tantilov, Emil S" >> Cc: Veaceslav Falico >> Cc: dingtianhong >> Fixes: 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks") >> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh > >Applied, thanks Jay. Rereading the above, I just noticed that I put the wrong commit into the fixes tag (and the "Later, the locking was changed" text); the correct fixes tag should be: Fixes: 4cb4f97b7e36 ("bonding: rebuild the lock use for bond_mii_monitor()") Kernels between 876254ae2758 and 4cb4f97b7e36 should not have this patch applied, as it might sleep under lock. Sorry for the error, -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com