Hi,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:20 PM Leandro Dorileo
> <leandro.maciel.dori...@intel.com> wrote:
>> +static int taprio_dev_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long
>> event,
>> + void *ptr)
>> +{
>> + struct net_device *dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
>> + struct taprio_sched *q;
>> + struct net_device *qdev;
>> +
>> + ASSERT_RTNL();
>> +
>> + if (event != NETDEV_UP && event != NETDEV_CHANGE)
>> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&taprio_list_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(q, &taprio_list, taprio_list) {
>> + qdev = qdisc_dev(q->root);
>> + if (qdev == dev) {
>> + taprio_set_picos_per_byte(dev, q);
>> + break;
>
> Is it safe to call __ethtool_get_link_ksettings() with spinlock held?
> I mean is it blocking?
>
> Please audit all the dev->ethtool_ops->get_link_ksettings(),
> I just look at a few of them, it seems good.
Yep, you're right. There are some get_link_ksettings implementations that will
lock
a mutex. I'm changing the implementation to avoid that.
Thanks for catching this up.
--
Dorileo
