Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: stmmac: Convert to phylink and remove phylib logic

[Jon Hunter]

On 18/06/2019 20:44, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 18/06/2019 16:20, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 18/06/2019 11:18, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/06/2019 10:46, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>>> From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not certain but I don't believe so. We are using a static IP address
>>>>> and mounting the root file-system via NFS when we see this ...
>>>>
>>>> Can you please add a call to napi_synchronize() before every 
>>>> napi_disable() calls, like this:
>>>>
>>>> if (queue < rx_queues_cnt) {
>>>> 	napi_synchronize(&ch->rx_napi);
>>>> 	napi_disable(&ch->rx_napi);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (queue < tx_queues_cnt) {
>>>> 	napi_synchronize(&ch->tx_napi);
>>>> 	napi_disable(&ch->tx_napi);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> [ I can send you a patch if you prefer ]
>>>
>>> Yes I can try this and for completeness you mean ...
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
>>> index 4ca46289a742..d4a12cb64d8e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
>>> @@ -146,10 +146,15 @@ static void stmmac_disable_all_queues(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
>>>         for (queue = 0; queue < maxq; queue++) {
>>>                 struct stmmac_channel *ch = &priv->channel[queue];
>>>  
>>> -               if (queue < rx_queues_cnt)
>>> +               if (queue < rx_queues_cnt) {
>>> +                       napi_synchronize(&ch->rx_napi);
>>>                         napi_disable(&ch->rx_napi);
>>> -               if (queue < tx_queues_cnt)
>>> +               }
>>> +
>>> +               if (queue < tx_queues_cnt) {
>>> +                       napi_synchronize(&ch->tx_napi);
>>>                         napi_disable(&ch->tx_napi);
>>> +               }
>>>         }
>>>  }
>>
>> So good news and bad news ...
>>
>> The good news is that the above change does fix the initial crash
>> I am seeing. However, even with this change applied on top of
>> -next, it is still dying somewhere else and so there appears to
>> be a second issue. 
> 
> Further testing has shown that actually this does NOT resolve the issue
> and I am still seeing the crash. Sorry for the false-positive.

Any further feedback? I am still seeing this issue on today's -next.

Thanks
Jon

-- 
nvpublic