On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 07:42:35PM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> On vr, 02 nov 2018 12:32:20 +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >
> > better to know if we do wrong mapping, instead of silently "fix" it
> > on this place.
>
> Do we agree that this 'should not occur'?
correct.
> This is a workaround for a deeper problem, shouldn't we attach the
> deeper problem?
It is not a workaround, we should be notified if some code makes wrong
things. The fix for this cases is in:
[PATCH v1 4/5] j1939: address-claim: handle ECU reclaiming as a new
claim.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/can/j1939/bus.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/can/j1939/bus.c b/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> > index 171fbdb2a1a8..9ebaa497139b 100644
> > --- a/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> > +++ b/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> > @@ -51,14 +51,25 @@ static bool j1939_ecu_is_mapped_locked(struct j1939_ecu *ecu)
> > /* map ECU to a bus address space */
> > static void j1939_ecu_map_locked(struct j1939_ecu *ecu)
> > {
> > + struct j1939_priv *priv = ecu->priv;
> > + struct j1939_addr_ent *ent;
> > +
> > lockdep_assert_held(&ecu->priv->lock);
> >
> > if (!j1939_address_is_unicast(ecu->addr))
> > return;
> >
> > + ent = &ecu->priv->ents[ecu->addr];
> > +
> > + if (ent->ecu) {
> > + netdev_warn(priv->ndev, "Trying to map already mapped ECU, addr: 0x%02x, name: 0x%016llx. Skip it.\n",
> > + ecu->addr, ecu->name);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > j1939_ecu_get(ecu);
> > - ecu->priv->ents[ecu->addr].ecu = ecu;
> > - ecu->priv->ents[ecu->addr].nusers += ecu->nusers;
> > + ent->ecu = ecu;
> > + ent->nusers += ecu->nusers;
> > }
> >
> > /* unmap ECU from a bus address space */
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
