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

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

[Jay Cliburn]

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>
---

Resending with correct -stable email address.

 drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c
b/drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c index 7685b99..9b60352 100644
--- a/drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c
@@ -2390,9 +2390,7 @@ static int __devinit atl1e_probe(struct pci_dev
*pdev, }

        /* Init GPHY as early as possible due to power saving issue  */
-       spin_lock(&adapter->mdio_lock);
        atl1e_phy_init(&adapter->hw);
-       spin_unlock(&adapter->mdio_lock);
        /* reset the controller to
         * put the device in a known good starting state */
        err = atl1e_reset_hw(&adapter->hw);
--
1.5.5.1

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

[David Miller]

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>

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

[Greg KH]

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?

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[David Miller]

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.

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

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 03:41:45PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

Will do, thanks for the quick response.

greg k-h