Re: [stable] [PATCH] [stable 2.6.27.y] don't take the mdio_lock in atl1e_probe

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:15:37 -0700

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:08:16AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@bellsouth.net>
> > Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:05:01 -0500
> > 
> > > From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
> > > 
> > > Upstream commit: f382a0a8e9403c6d7f8b2cfa21e41fefb5d0c9bd
> > > 
> > > This fixes bug 11736.
> > > 
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122367387219316&w=2
> > > 
> > > Lockdep warns about the mdio_lock taken with interrupts enabled then
> > > later taken from interrupt context.  Initially, I considered changing
> > > these to spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq, but then I looked at
> > > atl1e_phy_init() and saw that it calls msleep().  Sleeping while
> > > holding a spinlock is not allowed either.
> > > 
> > > In the probe path, we haven't registered the interrupt handler, so
> > > it can't poke at this card yet.  It's before we call register_netdev(),
> > > so I don't think any other threads can reach this card either.  If I'm
> > > right, we don't need a spinlock at all.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> 
> Does this mean you will forward this to -stable in a bunch of network
> patches?  Or should I take it now?

Please take this one now, t hanks.