On Mon, 2024-07-01 at 03:13 -0700, Allen wrote: > > > @@ -1326,22 +1326,22 @@ static void jme_link_change_work(struct work_struct *work) > > > jme_start_shutdown_timer(jme); > > > } > > > > > > - goto out_enable_tasklet; > > > + goto out_enable_bh_work; > > > > > > err_out_free_rx_resources: > > > jme_free_rx_resources(jme); > > > -out_enable_tasklet: > > > - tasklet_enable(&jme->txclean_task); > > > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxclean_task); > > > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxempty_task); > > > +out_enable_bh_work: > > > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->txclean_bh_work); > > > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxclean_bh_work); > > > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); > > > > This will unconditionally schedule the rxempty_bh_work and is AFAICS a > > different behavior WRT prior this patch. > > > > In turn the rxempty_bh_work() will emit (almost unconditionally) the > > 'RX Queue Full!' message, so the change should be visibile to the user. > > > > I think you should queue the work only if it was queued at cancel time. > > You likely need additional status to do that. > > > > Thank you for taking the time out to review. Now that it's been a week, I was > preparing to send out version 3. Before I do that, I want to make sure if this > the below approach is acceptable. I _think_ the following does not track the rxempty_bh_work 'queued' status fully/correctly. > @@ -1282,9 +1282,9 @@ static void jme_link_change_work(struct work_struct *work) > jme_stop_shutdown_timer(jme); > > jme_stop_pcc_timer(jme); > - tasklet_disable(&jme->txclean_task); > - tasklet_disable(&jme->rxclean_task); > - tasklet_disable(&jme->rxempty_task); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->txclean_bh_work); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->rxclean_bh_work); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->rxempty_bh_work); I think the above should be: jme->rxempty_bh_work_queued = disable_work_sync(&jme->rxempty_bh_work); [...] > @@ -1326,22 +1326,23 @@ static void jme_link_change_work(struct > work_struct *work) > jme_start_shutdown_timer(jme); > } > > - goto out_enable_tasklet; > + goto out_enable_bh_work; > > err_out_free_rx_resources: > jme_free_rx_resources(jme); > -out_enable_tasklet: > - tasklet_enable(&jme->txclean_task); > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxclean_task); > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxempty_task); > +out_enable_bh_work: > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->txclean_bh_work); > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxclean_bh_work); > + if (jme->rxempty_bh_work_queued) > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); Missing: else enable_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); [...] > @@ -3180,9 +3182,9 @@ jme_suspend(struct device *dev) > netif_stop_queue(netdev); > jme_stop_irq(jme); > > - tasklet_disable(&jme->txclean_task); > - tasklet_disable(&jme->rxclean_task); > - tasklet_disable(&jme->rxempty_task); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->txclean_bh_work); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->rxclean_bh_work); > + disable_work_sync(&jme->rxempty_bh_work); should be: jme->rxempty_bh_work_queued = disable_work_sync(&jme->rxempty_bh_work); > > @@ -3198,9 +3200,10 @@ jme_suspend(struct device *dev) > jme->phylink = 0; > } > > - tasklet_enable(&jme->txclean_task); > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxclean_task); > - tasklet_enable(&jme->rxempty_task); > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->txclean_bh_work); > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxclean_bh_work); > + jme->rxempty_bh_work_queued = true; > + enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); should be: if (jme->rxempty_bh_work_queued) enable_and_queue_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); else enable_work(system_bh_wq, &jme->rxempty_bh_work); I think the above ones are the only places where you need to touch 'rxempty_bh_work_queued'. [...] > Do we need a flag for rxclean and txclean too? Functionally speaking I don't think it will be necessary, as rxclean_bh_work() and txclean_bh_work() don't emit warnings on spurious invocation. Thanks, Paolo