From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosbu...@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:25:52 -0800
> David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> This was done historically in bonding, but the call to
>>> bond_update_speed_duplex was removed in commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding:
>>> don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks"), as it might sleep
>>> under lock. Later, the locking was changed to only hold RTNL, and so
>>> after commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex()
>>> under spinlocks") this call is again safe.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tanti...@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfal...@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: dingtianhong <dingtianh...@huawei.com>
>>> Fixes: 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() under
>>> spinlocks")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosbu...@canonical.com>
>>
>>Applied, thanks Jay.
>
> Rereading the above, I just noticed that I put the wrong commit
> into the fixes tag (and the "Later, the locking was changed" text); the
> correct fixes tag should be:
>
> Fixes: 4cb4f97b7e36 ("bonding: rebuild the lock use for bond_mii_monitor()")
>
> Kernels between 876254ae2758 and 4cb4f97b7e36 should not have
> this patch applied, as it might sleep under lock.
>
> Sorry for the error,
Ok, thanks for the info.
