From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347AEC433DB for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:43:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E355323131 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725902AbhAMEng (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:43:36 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:23614 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725781AbhAMEnf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:43:35 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10D4Vcnt158268; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:42:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=5gesdfeO3wGVRWVUEdNtDV4M8EMMBvu088Ojs4q6vKs=; b=I4DaOGu77bPjuroEQL5GtHe3Txvn0VBkEpqeGmdc5uZlvN2a1SHkLUfqeGc3d1mmpVrX +Dg8Ah8yaeG672+zgkOobjVqhRNojtisksYX4Xi2PEwQkPIMGFTSHOcGWzYDY6ZgcjvN +gdA5uXETmLj2pm6x+6Y9zPUiEgwq+oc7ubg7VwWIjuE7odUWKIQfYgL9qFgb+gQRM9P t9TH8nr/cvVcC/6vdFgLIwAMjtevbo1k1pvNQdAdabC9y1+8KWBwYCwJLuzJpSKUkifh 5DkP9pdwdVw3Jmb2Tb9WgZR+PUOroS86X16KxKK3bIJYlW3VXlUgYYvFszAg78mZZzex Ew== Received: from ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (1a.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.26]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 361sw907gx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:42:53 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10D4bHbu010427; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:52 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35y4493120-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:52 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 10D4gpsW22937986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:51 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8318378066; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572D078060; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from suka-w540.localdomain (unknown [9.85.207.168]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:42:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: by suka-w540.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 710342E2879; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:42:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:42:47 -0800 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Dany Madden , Lijun Pan , Rick Lindsley Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] ibmvnic: Use more consistent locking Message-ID: <20210113044247.GA224486@us.ibm.com> References: <20210112181441.206545-1-sukadev@linux.ibm.com> <20210112180054.28ebcd1a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210112180054.28ebcd1a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.32 on an i486 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-13_02:2021-01-12,2021-01-13 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=782 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101130021 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Jakub Kicinski [kuba@kernel.org] wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:14:34 -0800 Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Use more consistent locking when reading/writing the adapter->state > > field. This patch set fixes a race condition during ibmvnic_open() > > where the adapter could be left in the PROBED state if a reset occurs > > at the wrong time. This can cause networking to not come up during > > boot and potentially require manual intervention in bringing up > > applications that depend on the network. > > Apologies for not having enough time to suggest details, but let me > state this again - the patches which fix bugs need to go into net with > Fixes tags, the refactoring needs to go to net-next without Fixes tags. > If there are dependencies, patches go to net first, then within a week > or so the reset can be posted for net-next, after net -> net-next merge. Well, the patch set fixes a set of bugs - main one is a locking bug fixed in patch 6. Other bugs are more minor or corner cases. Fixing the locking bug requires some refactoring/simplifying/reordering checks so lock can be properly acquired. Because of the size/cleanup, should we treat it as "next" material? i.e should I just drop the Fixes tag and resend to net-next? Or can we ignore the size of patchset and treat it all as bug fixes? Appreciate your input. Thanks, Sukadev