Message ID | 20090805071411.GA9217@elte.hu |
---|---|
State | Superseded, archived |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
Ingo Molnar a écrit : > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > >> FYI, -tip testing found that these bits trigger a missing lockdep >> annotation warning: > > it's apparently using an zero-initialized spinlock. This is a > side-effect of: > > dev_unicast_init(dev); > > in alloc_netdev_mq() making use of dev->addr_list_lock. > > Wouldnt the patch below be the right fix? The device has just been > allocated freshly, it's not accessible anywhere yet so no locking is > needed at all - in fact it's wrong to lock it here (the lock isnt > initialized yet). > > This bug was apparently introduced via: > > | commit a6ac65db2329e7685299666f5f7b6093c7b0f3a0 > | Author: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com> > | Date: Thu Jul 30 01:06:12 2009 +0000 > | > | net: restore the original spinlock to protect unicast list > > it needlessly added new locking and apparently nobody ran this patch > with lockdep. > > Ingo > > Index: linux2/net/core/dev.c > =================================================================== > --- linux2.orig/net/core/dev.c > +++ linux2/net/core/dev.c > @@ -4007,9 +4007,7 @@ static void dev_unicast_flush(struct net > > static void dev_unicast_init(struct net_device *dev) > { > - netif_addr_lock_bh(dev); > __hw_addr_init(&dev->uc); > - netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev); > } > > Indeed, this function is static and thus only called from alloc_netdev_mq() -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Index: linux2/net/core/dev.c =================================================================== --- linux2.orig/net/core/dev.c +++ linux2/net/core/dev.c @@ -4007,9 +4007,7 @@ static void dev_unicast_flush(struct net static void dev_unicast_init(struct net_device *dev) { - netif_addr_lock_bh(dev); __hw_addr_init(&dev->uc); - netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev); }