On 9/18/19 1:12 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Juliet,
>
> Juliet Kim <juli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Signed-off-by: Juliet Kim <juli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.h | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>> index ba340aaff1b3..f344ccd68ad9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
>> @@ -2054,6 +2054,13 @@ static void __ibmvnic_reset(struct work_struct *work)
>>
>> adapter = container_of(work, struct ibmvnic_adapter, ibmvnic_reset);
>>
>> + if (adapter->resetting) {
>> + schedule_delayed_work(&adapter->ibmvnic_delayed_reset,
>> + IBMVNIC_RESET_DELAY);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + adapter->resetting = true;
>> reset_state = adapter->state;
> Is there some locking/serialisation around this?
>
> Otherwise that looks very racy. ie. two CPUs could both see
> adapter->resetting == false, then both set it to true, and then continue
> executing and stomp on each other.
>
> cheers
I agree there may be a race here. Thank you for reviewing.
I will address it in the next version.
