Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1732656 > unrolled thread

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 4/5] e1000e: Separate signaling for link check/link up

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 4/5] e1000e: Separate signaling for  link check/link up "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> - 2017-09-15 02:30 +0200

#1732656 — RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 4/5] e1000e: Separate signaling for link check/link up

On 7/21/2017 21:36, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Lennart reported the following race condition:
>
> \ e1000_watchdog_task
>      \ e1000e_has_link
>          \ hw->mac.ops.check_for_link() === e1000e_check_for_copper_link
>              /* link is up */
>              mac->get_link_status = false;
>
>                              /* interrupt */
>                              \ e1000_msix_other
>                                  hw->mac.get_link_status = true;
>
>          link_active = !hw->mac.get_link_status
>          /* link_active is false, wrongly */
>
> This problem arises because the single flag get_link_status is used to
> signal two different states: link status needs checking and link status is
> down.
>
> Avoid the problem by using the return value of .check_for_link to signal
> the link status to e1000e_has_link().
>
> Reported-by: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@suse.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c    | 11 ++++++++---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c |  2 +-
>   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web