On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:21:40PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > [ Upstream commit 0020f5c807ef67954d9210eea0ba17a6134cdf7d ] > > > > The driver may sleep with holding a spinlock. > > The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.17 are: > > > > [FUNC] usleep_range > > drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/sni_ave.c, 892: > > usleep_range in ave_rxfifo_reset > > drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/sni_ave.c, 932: > > ave_rxfifo_reset in ave_irq_handler > > > > [FUNC] usleep_range > > drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/sni_ave.c, 888: > > usleep_range in ave_rxfifo_reset > > drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/sni_ave.c, 932: > > ave_rxfifo_reset in ave_irq_handler > > > > To fix these bugs, usleep_range() is replaced with udelay(). > > I don't believe this is serious enough for -stable, but more > importantly: Sleeping in a spinlock is not allowed, yes, this is a bugfix worth of stable, how could it not? > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/sni_ave.c > > @@ -906,11 +906,11 @@ static void ave_rxfifo_reset(struct net_device *ndev) > > > > /* assert reset */ > > writel(AVE_GRR_RXFFR, priv->base + AVE_GRR); > > - usleep_range(40, 50); > > + udelay(50); > > > > /* negate reset */ > > writel(0, priv->base + AVE_GRR); > > - usleep_range(10, 20); > > + udelay(20); > > > > udelay(40) / udelay(10) should be enough here. Maybe not, this way is safe, right? greg k-h
