On 01.11.2022 22:29:02, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> In commit 4b7fe92c0690 ("can: isotp: add local echo tx processing for
> consecutive frames") the data flow for consecutive frames (CF) has been
> reworked to improve the reliability of long data transfers.
>
> This rework did not touch the transmission and the tx state changes of
> single frame (SF) transfers which likely led to the WARN in the
> isotp_tx_timer_handler() catching a wrong tx state. This patch makes use
> of the improved frame processing for SF frames and sets the ISOTP_SENDING
> state in isotp_sendmsg() within the cmpxchg() condition handling.
>
> A review of the state machine and the timer handling additionally revealed
> a missing echo timeout handling in the case of the burst mode in
> isotp_rcv_echo() and removes a potential timer configuration uncertainty
> in isotp_rcv_fc() when the receiver requests consecutive frames.
>
> Fixes: 4b7fe92c0690 ("can: isotp: add local echo tx processing for consecutive frames")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/CAO4mrfe3dG7cMP1V5FLUkw7s+50c9vichigUMQwsxX4M=45QEw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> Reported-by: Wei Chen <harperchen1110@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v6.0
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> @@ -905,10 +915,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart isotp_tx_timer_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> so->tx.state = ISOTP_IDLE;
> wake_up_interruptible(&so->wait);
> break;
>
> default:
> + pr_notice_once("can-isotp: tx timer state %X\n", so->tx.state);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
Can you use WARN_ONCE() instead of pr_notice_once() + WARN_ON_ONCE() here?
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
