| Message ID | 20220208162053.39896-1-srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function | expand |
On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts > with out completing the NAPI call. Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. regards, Marc
Hi Marc, > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:20 PM > To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> > Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; Michal > Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; linux-can@vger.kernel.org; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao > <appanad@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; git > <git@xilinx.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function > > On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with out > > completing the NAPI call. > > Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: > tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the return value of "napi_complete_done" call). Thanks Srinivas Neeli > > regards, > 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 |
On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with out > > > completing the NAPI call. > > > > Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: > > tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. > > It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the > return value of "napi_complete_done" call). Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next? regards, Marc
Hi Marc, > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:02 PM > To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> > Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; Michal > Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; linux-can@vger.kernel.org; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao > <appanad@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; git > <git@xilinx.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function > > On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > > On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > > > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with > > > > out completing the NAPI call. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: > > > tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. > > > > It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the > > return value of "napi_complete_done" call). > > Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next? If possible please apply on both branches. > > regards, > 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 |
Hi, On 2/9/22 09:40, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > Hi Marc, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:02 PM >> To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> >> Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; Michal >> Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; linux-can@vger.kernel.org; >> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- >> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao >> <appanad@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; git >> <git@xilinx.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function >> >> On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote: >>>> On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: >>>>> Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with >>>>> out completing the NAPI call. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: >>>> tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. >>> >>> It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the >>> return value of "napi_complete_done" call). >> >> Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next? > > If possible please apply on both branches. New feature should come to next. It means can-next please. Thanks, Michal
On 09.02.2022 08:40:48, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > Hi Marc, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:02 PM > > To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> > > Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; Michal > > Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; linux-can@vger.kernel.org; > > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao > > <appanad@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; git > > <git@xilinx.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function > > > > On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > > > On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote: > > > > > Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with > > > > > out completing the NAPI call. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes: > > > > tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug. > > > > > > It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the > > > return value of "napi_complete_done" call). > > > > Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next? > > If possible please apply on both branches. That's not an option. Going for can-next as Michal Simek suggested. Adding to linux-can-next/testing. Marc
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c b/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c index 1674b561c9a2..e562c5ab1149 100644 --- a/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c +++ b/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c @@ -1215,10 +1215,11 @@ static int xcan_rx_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int quota) } if (work_done < quota) { - napi_complete_done(napi, work_done); - ier = priv->read_reg(priv, XCAN_IER_OFFSET); - ier |= xcan_rx_int_mask(priv); - priv->write_reg(priv, XCAN_IER_OFFSET, ier); + if (napi_complete_done(napi, work_done)) { + ier = priv->read_reg(priv, XCAN_IER_OFFSET); + ier |= xcan_rx_int_mask(priv); + priv->write_reg(priv, XCAN_IER_OFFSET, ier); + } } return work_done; }
Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with out completing the NAPI call. Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> --- drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)