On 03/09/2012 03:50 PM, Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi wrote: > On 3/9/2012 2:49 PM, Robert Love wrote: >> From: Neil Horman<nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Recieved this warning recently: >> >> WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:143 local_bh_enable+0x7d/0xb0() (Not >> tainted) >> Hardware name: C6100 >> Modules linked in: autofs4 bnx2fc cnic uio fcoe libfcoe libfc >> scsi_transport_fc >> scsi_tgt 8021q garp stp llc sunrpc cpufreq_ondemand acpi_cpufreq >> freq_table >> mperf ipv6 ixgbe mdio igb dcdbas microcode i2c_i801 i2c_core sg iTCO_wdt >> iTCO_vendor_support ioatdma dca i7core_edac edac_core shpchp ext4 >> mbcache jbd2 >> sd_mod crc_t10dif ahci dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod [last >> unloaded: >> scsi_wait_scan] >> Pid: 4926, comm: fc_rport_eq Not tainted 2.6.32 #2 >> Call Trace: >> [<ffffffff81069c67>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xc0 >> [<ffffffff81069cba>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 >> [<ffffffff8107216d>] ? local_bh_enable+0x7d/0xb0 >> [<ffffffff81433567>] ? dev_queue_xmit+0x177/0x6c0 >> [<ffffffffa0293a34>] ? vlan_dev_hwaccel_hard_start_xmit+0x84/0xb0 >> [8021q] >> [<ffffffff8142f46c>] ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0x2bc/0x3f0 >> [<ffffffff8143392e>] ? dev_queue_xmit+0x53e/0x6c0 >> [<ffffffff8142348e>] ? __skb_clone+0x2e/0x120 >> [<ffffffffa02ea83d>] ? fcoe_clean_pending_queue+0xcd/0x100 [libfcoe] >> [<ffffffff810559ca>] ? find_busiest_group+0x9aa/0xb20 >> [<ffffffffa02f7624>] ? fcoe_port_send+0x24/0x50 [fcoe] >> [<ffffffffa02f9568>] ? fcoe_xmit+0x228/0x3e0 [fcoe] >> [<ffffffffa02c1896>] ? fc_seq_send+0xb6/0x160 [libfc] >> [<ffffffffa02c1a76>] ? fc_exch_abort_locked+0x136/0x1c0 [libfc] >> [<ffffffffa02c1ca7>] ? fc_exch_mgr_reset+0x147/0x2a0 [libfc] >> [<ffffffff814f2c7e>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0xe/0x20 >> [<ffffffffa02c91d3>] ? fc_rport_work+0x123/0x5f0 [libfc] >> [<ffffffffa02c90b0>] ? fc_rport_work+0x0/0x5f0 [libfc] >> [<ffffffff8108b559>] ? worker_thread+0x179/0x2a0 >> [<ffffffff81090ea0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 >> [<ffffffff8108b3e0>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x2a0 >> [<ffffffff81090b56>] ? kthread+0x96/0xa0 >> [<ffffffff8100c10a>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x20 >> [<ffffffff81090ac0>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0 >> [<ffffffff8100c100>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20 >> >> fc_exch_abort_locked attempts to send an abort frame, but it does so >> with a >> spinlock held and irqs/bh's disabled. Because of this dev_queue_xmit >> issues a >> warning. This patch allows the fc_exch_abort_locked to drop and >> re-acquire the >> lock so that the warning is suppressed. >> >> Note this isn't a great fix, given that we need to free and >> re-acquire the >> ex_lock during the fc_exch_abort_locked operation, but any other >> solution is >> going to be a fairly major undertaking I think. This should work >> until a proper >> fix can be found. >> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman<nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Love<robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> > > Robert, This patch is not required based on what we discussed in this > thread.. > http://lists.open-fcoe.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/011946.html > > Neil provided "fcoe: Ensure fcoe_recv_frame is always called in > process context" instead of the two patches he submitted initially. > http://lists.open-fcoe.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/011962.html > Thanks for pointing this out Bhanu, I overlooked the last comment in the discussion of this patch. James, I believe the correct patch is 02/10 in this series, so I think you should be able to drop this patch and we'll be back on track. If you'd like me to resend the series without this patch please let me know. I'll check to make sure 02/10 through 10/10 apply without 01/10 and resend if I have to make changes. For formality's sake: Nacked-by: Robert Love <robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks, //Rob��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
