From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] ravb/sh_eth: fix sleep in atomic by reusing shared ethtool handlers Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:59:22 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20180704081245.7395-1-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <20180705.095631.647119741817887082.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:45388 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751720AbeGEF72 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2018 01:59:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180705.095631.647119741817887082.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi David, On 07/05/2018 03:56 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Vladimir Zapolskiy > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:12:38 +0300 > >> For ages trivial changes to RAVB and SuperH ethernet links by means of >> standard 'ethtool' trigger a 'sleeping function called from invalid >> context' bug, to visualize it on r8a7795 ULCB: > ... >> The root cause is that an attempt to modify ECMR and GECMR registers >> only when RX/TX function is disabled was too overcomplicated in its >> original implementation, also processing of an optional Link Change >> interrupt added even more complexity, as a result the implementation >> was error prone. >> >> The new locking scheme is confirmed to be correct by dumping driver >> specific and generic PHY framework function calls with aid of ftrace >> while running more or less advanced tests. >> >> Please note that sh_eth patches from the series were built-tested only. >> >> On purpose I do not add Fixes tags, the reused PHY handlers were added >> way later than the fixed problems were firstly found in the drivers. >> >> Changes from v1 to v2: >> * the original patches are split to bugfixes and enhancements only, >> both v1 and v2 series are absolutely equal in total, thus I omit >> description of changes in individual patches, >> * the latter implies that there should be no strict need for retesting, >> but because formally two series are different, I have to drop the tags >> given by Geert and Andrew, please send your tags again. > > These changes look fine to me but I want to see some reviews and/or > testing before I apply them. > Thanks to Geert for finding time to test v1 series, the sums of changes are word for word, https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg28666.html Andrew also gave a number of Reviewed-by tags, but they are not directly applicable to new patches, unfortunately. In any case let's wait for scrupulous review completed by Sergei, I believe he'd like to contribute to the review process, and Sergei may highlight more shortcomings.