Thread (21 messages) 21 messages, 3 authors, 2024-09-04

Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/7] net: ethernet: fs_enet: phylink conversion

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-09-03 01:55:45
Also in: linuxppc-dev, lkml

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:15:30 +0200 Maxime Chevallier wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -582,15 +591,12 @@ static void fs_timeout_work(struct work_struct *work)
 
 	dev->stats.tx_errors++;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->lock, flags);
-
-	if (dev->flags & IFF_UP) {
-		phy_stop(dev->phydev);
-		(*fep->ops->stop)(dev);
-		(*fep->ops->restart)(dev);
-	}
+	rtnl_lock();
so we take rtnl_lock here..
+	phylink_stop(fep->phylink);
+	phylink_start(fep->phylink);
+	rtnl_unlock();
 
-	phy_start(dev->phydev);
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->lock, flags);
 	wake = fep->tx_free >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS &&
 	       !(CBDR_SC(fep->cur_tx) & BD_ENET_TX_READY);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->lock, flags);
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -717,19 +686,18 @@ static int fs_enet_close(struct net_device *dev)
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	netif_stop_queue(dev);
-	netif_carrier_off(dev);
 	napi_disable(&fep->napi);
 	cancel_work_sync(&fep->timeout_work);
..and cancel_work_sync() under rtnl_lock here?

IDK if removing the the "dev->flags & IFF_UP" check counts as
meaningfully making it worse, but we're going in the wrong direction.
The _sync() has to go, and the timeout work needs to check if device
has been closed under rtnl_lock ?

-	phy_stop(dev->phydev);
+	phylink_stop(fep->phylink);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->lock, flags);
 	spin_lock(&fep->tx_lock);
 	(*fep->ops->stop)(dev);
 	spin_unlock(&fep->tx_lock);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->lock, flags);
+	phylink_disconnect_phy(fep->phylink);
 
 	/* release any irqs */
-	phy_disconnect(dev->phydev);
 	free_irq(fep->interrupt, dev);
 
 	return 0;
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help