On 27-9-2016 13:58, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 13:44, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 27 September 2016 at 13:27, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 27-9-2016 11:14, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Flowrings contain skbs waiting for transmission that were passed to us
>>>>> by netif. It means we checked every one of them looking for 802.1x
>>>>> Ethernet type. When deleting flowring we have to use freeing function
>>>>> that will check for 802.1x type as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Freeing skbs without a proper check was leading to counter not being
>>>>> properly decreased. This was triggering a WARNING every time
>>>>> brcmf_netdev_wait_pend8021x was called.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Kalle: this isn't important enough for 4.8 as it's too late for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to get it for 4.9 however, as this fixes bug that could lead
>>>>> to WARNING on every add_key/del_key call. We was struggling with these
>>>>> WARNINGs for some time and this fixes one of two problems causing them.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll queue this for 4.9.
>>>
>>>> Please mark it for stable as well.
>>>
>>> I can add that. Any ideas how old releases stable releases should this
>>> go to?
>>
>> I was analyzing this.
>> 1) This patch uses brcmf_get_ifp which is available in 4.4+ only.
>> 2) It applies cleanly to 4.5+ only due to 32f90caa7debd ("brcmfmac:
>> Increase nr of supported flowrings.")
>> 3) 4.4 would also require applying to the patch without broadcom/ subdir
>>
>> That said I suggest 4.5+. Any objections?
No objections. Just a tip. I tend to look at kernel.org main page to see
the stable and long-term kernel listed. So 4.7+ and 4.5+ have same
meaning as 4.5 and 4.6 are not stable/long-term kernels.
Regards,
Arend
> Let me see if patchwork with pick Cc tag as it does for others.
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.5+
>
> This may be worth backporting to 4.4 as well (as it's longterm), but
> I'll do it separately due to patch not applying cleanly.
