On 2019-10-23 10:06:40 [+0200], Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Sebastian suggested to try this here:
>
> --- a/drivers/net/usb/lan78xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/lan78xx.c
> @@ -1264,8 +1264,11 @@ static void lan78xx_status(struct lan78xx_net *dev, struct urb *urb)
> netif_dbg(dev, link, dev->net, "PHY INTR: 0x%08x\n", intdata);
> lan78xx_defer_kevent(dev, EVENT_LINK_RESET);
>
> - if (dev->domain_data.phyirq > 0)
> + if (dev->domain_data.phyirq > 0) {
> + local_irq_disable();
> generic_handle_irq(dev->domain_data.phyirq);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + }
> } else
> netdev_warn(dev->net,
> "unexpected interrupt: 0x%08x\n", intdata);
This should should be applied as a regression fix introduced by commit
ed194d1367698 ("usb: core: remove local_irq_save() around ->complete() handler")
> While this gets rid of the warning, the networking interface is not
> really stable:
>
> [ 43.999628] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 43.999633] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 43.999649] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 43.999674] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 43.999678] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 44.006712] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 44.018443] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 44.024765] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 44.025361] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 44.025420] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 256.991659] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 256.991664] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 256.991669] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 256.991685] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 256.991713] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 not responding, still trying
> [ 256.998797] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 256.999745] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 256.999828] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 257.000438] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
> [ 257.004784] nfs: server 192.168.19.2 OK
Since this does not improve the situation as a whole it might be best to
remove the code as suggested by Daniel.
Sebastian
