From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: ixgbe: RTNL assertion failed Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 07:58:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20130506075828.717864ba@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <20130503120907.4f13d41b@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130504015406.GP2619@decadent.org.uk> <1367702492.5106.164.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/zSnm3Eg2n0G7+ix7fqqLWxw"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: "Skidmore, Donald C" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:55197 "EHLO mail-pd0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753815Ab3EFO6c (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 10:58:32 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 3so2052412pdj.27 for ; Mon, 06 May 2013 07:58:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1367702492.5106.164.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/zSnm3Eg2n0G7+ix7fqqLWxw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:21:32 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 21:05 +0000, Skidmore, Donald C wrote: > [...] > > > The version of ixgbe in this Debian kernel has bql support backported= , but is > > > otherwise the same as in 3.2.41. I assume that this bug has been fix= ed some > > > time between 3.2 and 3.9, but no-one requested that the fix be includ= ed in > > > stable branches. Please can you identify the fix? > > >=20 > > > Ben. > > >=20 > > > -- > > > Ben Hutchings > > > We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinkin= g. > > > - Alber= t Camus > >=20 > > I believe this is the patch: > >=20 > > commit 34948a947d1a576c10afee6d14792fd237549577 > > Author: Benjamin Poirier > > Date: Fri Apr 6 07:20:21 2012 +0000 > >=20 > > ixgbe: add missing rtnl_lock in PM resume path > [...] >=20 > Looks like it. And it applies cleanly to 3.2.y. Stephen, could you > test this on top of 3.2.y and then nominate it for stable? >=20 > Ben. >=20 Patch works. Tested with 3.2.44 with this patch and there is no problem. --Sig_/zSnm3Eg2n0G7+ix7fqqLWxw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRh8UUAAoJEICnf2CVzeR+2awP/1kHJdSbCJle6rldFgwis0IP pW2pGDPaafRScEJzLm4DKaGuRa7WS2+CS+nMirdhOhc7bie5oVKS/eFDPgnJgZBS DemQhWUHVjt+FLMYKvM0iGJW2vhjlTPiOHZvB2abCOlC0sWW2lECImJ9ayGtngxM lG6Ix8h4opYcV73xuWCR8jek1JvC3iNGwpNY7jUz86CKRBnnvRXmsPKKKK81U5qr woz0c+x+qZbC7Ypc/HN83fmPZe4772Y7N8r+dpEf0eFh3bwZQiPwmSKTn11rLrrL cQX3MetYlVvNHFx4J1rQUZXSH2+t9k8N7znHTxfYXyR6AVqcGzuUC8/HBGoOrOmb PbSB7RRYZFx9FttzZaK+/PNNAhYlxkdFVqMGKvfCoN81Z3sQarGmC0dC2d2IhS9k evXiENkxEbVChn3ipdcUD5aUG6ky5+LlVWc2iArtWD5W50mcQHqtu+4ED214epd3 hR23N6LOlVF0L7adkUg86+8TW4dDS7PrYdvLF5sHMhEX/KW+nPzC+EsmzFW6YT5N ehIPWyPl++OJeNXTDSOOiGLk6fu1imHC9E2hBOmFLL7vcMt0nR5dbML3uSSO35uw 0HtVAilSN2dW+3QhHMwHqLtFU/vavw1CL54nR3MjCx7Po+BWlVDf1AMmEzxXxcZL XnIhtdcb36kZTqT7Tid8 =wn0n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/zSnm3Eg2n0G7+ix7fqqLWxw--