On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:17:50AM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 08:21:30AM +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 07:38:50AM +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:10:31PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Daniel Suchy wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I noticed boot problems on my Turris Omnia (with Marvell 88E6176 switch > > > > > chip) after "net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: flush switchdev FDB workqueue before > > > > > removing VLAN" commit https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=2566a89b9e163b2fcd104d6005e0149f197b8a48 > > > > > > > > > > Within logs I catched hung kernel tasks (see below), at least first is > > > > > related to DSA subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > When I revert this patch, everything works as expected and without any > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > In my setup, I have few vlans on affected switch (i'm using ifupdown2 v3.0 > > > > > with iproute2 5.16 for configuration). > > > > > > > > > > It seems your this patch introduces some new problem (at least for 5.15 > > > > > kernels). I suggest revert this patch. > > > > > > > > > > - Daniel > > > > > > > > Oh wow, I'm terribly sorry. Yes, this patch shouldn't have been > > > > backported to kernel 5.15 and below, but I guess I missed the > > > > backport notification email and forgot to tell Greg about this. > > > > Patch "net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: flush switchdev FDB workqueue before > > > > removing VLAN" needs to be immediately reverted from these trees. > > > > > > > > Greg, to avoid this from happening in the future, would something like > > > > this work? Is this parsed in some way? > > > > > > > > Depends-on: 0faf890fc519 ("net: dsa: drop rtnl_lock from dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work") # which first appeared in v5.16 > > > > > > The "Fixes:" tag will solve this, please just use that in the future. > > > > Ah, you did have a fixes tag here, so then use the way to say "you also > > need to add another patch here" by adding the sha to the line for the > > stable tree: > > cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 0faf890fc519 > > > > So, should I just backport that commit instead? The "Fixes:" line says > > this needs to be backported to 4.14, which is why I added it to these > > trees. > > > > thanks, > > No, don't backport the dependency, just revert the patch (hence my > question: how can I describe "don't backport beyond commit X"?). > > Here, you can apply the revert attached. Thanks, now queued up. greg k-h
