On 2022/12/8 9:41, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:26 AM
To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
On 2022/12/8 8:38, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
To: Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
@@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
} else {
skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
- dev_kfree_skb(skb);
+ dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
#define dev_kfree_skb(a) consume_skb(a)
dev_kfree_skb() is consume_skb(), so use dev_consume_skb_irq() instead.
static inline void dev_kfree_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
__dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_DROPPED);
}
static inline void dev_consume_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
__dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_CONSUMED);
}
They have different free reasons.
It falls into this case because of 'priv->shutdown', so DROPPED reason makes
sense, no? Or I misunderstand the reason?
You are right, it's better to use dev_kfree_skb_irq(), because this is
called when it's
stopped and need to drop the SKB, I will send a v2 to change it.
Thanks,
Yang
--
Ping-Ke
