Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 161
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 26 1月, 2008 15 次提交
  3. 25 1月, 2008 2 次提交
  5. 12 1月, 2008 12 次提交
  7. 11 12月, 2007 1 次提交
    • J
      [S390]: Fix use of skb after netif_rx · 9b3efc01
      由 Julia Lawall 提交于 
      Recently, Wang Chen submitted a patch
(d30f53ae) to move a call to netif_rx(skb)
after a subsequent reference to skb, because netif_rx may call kfree_skb on
its argument.  netif_rx_ni calls netif_rx, so the same problem occurs in
the files below.

I have left the updating of dev->last_rx after the calls to netif_rx_ni
because it seems time dependent, but moved the other field updates before.

This was found using the following semantic match.
(http://www.emn.fr/x-info/coccinelle/)

// <smpl>
@@
expression skb, e,e1;
@@

(
 netif_rx(skb);
|
 netif_rx_ni(skb);
)
  ... when != skb = e
(
  skb = e1
|
* skb
)
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: NJulia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      9b3efc01
  9. 05 12月, 2007 1 次提交
  11. 04 12月, 2007 3 次提交
  13. 02 12月, 2007 1 次提交
  15. 20 11月, 2007 2 次提交
  17. 17 11月, 2007 2 次提交
    • M
      [SCSI] zfcp: fix cleanup of dismissed error recovery actions · 86e8dfc5
      由 Martin Peschke 提交于 
      Calling zfcp_erp_strategy_check_action() after zfcp_erp_action_to_running()
in zfcp_erp_strategy() might cause an unbalanced up() for erp_ready_sem,
which makes the zfcp recovery fail somewhere along the way:

erp thread processing erp_action:
|
|	someone waking up erp thread for erp_action
|	|
|	|		someone else dismissing erp_action:
|	|		|
V	V		V

	write_lock_irqsave(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
	...
	if (zfcp_erp_action_exists(erp_action) == ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_RUNNING) {
		zfcp_erp_action_to_ready(erp_action);
		up(&adapter->erp_ready_sem);	/* first up() for erp_action */
	}
	write_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);

write_lock_irqsave(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
...
zfcp_erp_action_to_running(erp_action);
write_unlock_restore(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
/* processing erp_action */

			write_lock_irqsave(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
			...
			erp_action->status |= ZFCP_STATUS_ERP_DISMISSED;
			if (zfcp_erp_action_exists(erp_action) ==
						ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_RUNNING) {
				zfcp_erp_action_to_ready(erp_action);
				up(&adapter->erp_ready_sem);
				/* second, unbalanced up() for erp_action */
			}
			...
			write_unlock_restore(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);

write_lock_irqsave(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
if (erp_action->status & ZFCP_STATUS_ERP_DISMISSED) {
	zfcp_erp_action_dequeue(erp_action);
	retval = ZFCP_ERP_DISMISSED;
}
...
write_unlock_restore(&adapter->erp_lock, flags);
down(&adapter->erp_ready_sem);
/* this down() is meant to balance the first up() */

The erp thread must not dismiss an erp_action after moving that action to
erp_running_head. Instead it should just go through the down() operation,
which balances the first up(), and run through zfcp_erp_strategy one more
time for the second up(), which eventually cleans up erp_action. Which
is similar to the normal processing of an event for erp_action doing
something asynchronously (e.g. waiting for the completion of an fsf_req).

This only works if we make sure that a dismissed erp_action is passed to
zfcp_erp_strategy() prior to the other action, which caused actions to be
dismissed. Therefore the patch implements this rule: running actions go to
the head of the ready list; new actions go to the tail of the ready list;
the erp thread picks actions to be processed from the ready list's head.
Signed-off-by: NMartin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NSwen Schillig <swen@vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
      86e8dfc5
    • M
      [SCSI] zfcp: fix dismissal of error recovery actions · d0076f77
      由 Martin Peschke 提交于 
      zfcp_erp_action_dismiss() used to ignore any actions in the ready list. This
is a bug. Any action superseded by a stronger action needs to be dismissed.
This patch changes zfcp_erp_action_dismiss() so that it dismisses actions
regardless of their list affiliation. The ERP thread is able to handle this.
It is important to kick the erp thread only for actions in the running list,
though, as an imbalance of wakeup signals would confuse the erp thread
otherwise.
Signed-off-by: NMartin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NSwen Schillig <swen@vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
      d0076f77
  19. 05 11月, 2007 1 次提交