Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 28/45] net: stmmac: Fixed mtu channged by cache aligned
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:39:22PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: On 20.01.21 15:26, Sasha Levin wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:08:15PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: This was applied 6 days ago, I thought you said you wait two weeks. What am I missing? The "AUTOSEL" review cycle is an additional hurdle automatically selected patches need to clear before being queued up. There are 7 days between the day I sent the review for these and the first day I might queue them up. I guess this could benefit from being documented in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst? Or is this documented elsewhere? This is not documented because it's not part of the -stable process, it's just the way I currently handle AUTOSEL stuff. The timeline requirement for -stable is: "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)" -- Thanks, Sasha
Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 28/45] net: stmmac: Fixed mtu channged by cache aligned
Hello Sasha,
On 20.01.21 15:26, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:08:15PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:25:45 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: David Wu
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 5b55299eed78538cc4746e50ee97103a1643249c ]
>>>
>>> Since the original mtu is not used when the mtu is updated,
>>> the mtu is aligned with cache, this will get an incorrect.
>>> For example, if you want to configure the mtu to be 1500,
>>> but mtu 1536 is configured in fact.
>>>
>>> Fixed: eaf4fac478077 ("net: stmmac: Do not accept invalid MTU values")
>>> Signed-off-by: David Wu
>>> Link:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210113034109.27865-1-david...@rock-chips.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
>>
>> This was applied 6 days ago, I thought you said you wait two weeks.
>> What am I missing?
>
> The "AUTOSEL" review cycle is an additional hurdle automatically
> selected patches need to clear before being queued up. There are 7 days
> between the day I sent the review for these and the first day I might
> queue them up.
I guess this could benefit from being documented in
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst? Or is this documented
elsewhere?
>
> This mail isn't an indication that the patch has been added to the
> queue, it's just an extra step to give folks time to object.
>
> If you add up all the days you'll get >14 :)
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0|
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917- |
Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 28/45] net: stmmac: Fixed mtu channged by cache aligned
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:08:15PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:25:45 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote:
From: David Wu
[ Upstream commit 5b55299eed78538cc4746e50ee97103a1643249c ]
Since the original mtu is not used when the mtu is updated,
the mtu is aligned with cache, this will get an incorrect.
For example, if you want to configure the mtu to be 1500,
but mtu 1536 is configured in fact.
Fixed: eaf4fac478077 ("net: stmmac: Do not accept invalid MTU values")
Signed-off-by: David Wu
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210113034109.27865-1-david...@rock-chips.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
This was applied 6 days ago, I thought you said you wait two weeks.
What am I missing?
The "AUTOSEL" review cycle is an additional hurdle automatically
selected patches need to clear before being queued up. There are 7 days
between the day I sent the review for these and the first day I might
queue them up.
This mail isn't an indication that the patch has been added to the
queue, it's just an extra step to give folks time to object.
If you add up all the days you'll get >14 :)
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 28/45] net: stmmac: Fixed mtu channged by cache aligned
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:25:45 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: David Wu
>
> [ Upstream commit 5b55299eed78538cc4746e50ee97103a1643249c ]
>
> Since the original mtu is not used when the mtu is updated,
> the mtu is aligned with cache, this will get an incorrect.
> For example, if you want to configure the mtu to be 1500,
> but mtu 1536 is configured in fact.
>
> Fixed: eaf4fac478077 ("net: stmmac: Do not accept invalid MTU values")
> Signed-off-by: David Wu
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210113034109.27865-1-david...@rock-chips.com
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
This was applied 6 days ago, I thought you said you wait two weeks.
What am I missing?
[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 28/45] net: stmmac: Fixed mtu channged by cache aligned
From: David Wu
[ Upstream commit 5b55299eed78538cc4746e50ee97103a1643249c ]
Since the original mtu is not used when the mtu is updated,
the mtu is aligned with cache, this will get an incorrect.
For example, if you want to configure the mtu to be 1500,
but mtu 1536 is configured in fact.
Fixed: eaf4fac478077 ("net: stmmac: Do not accept invalid MTU values")
Signed-off-by: David Wu
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210113034109.27865-1-david...@rock-chips.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
index cb39f6dbf72b8..b3d6d8e3f4de9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
@@ -3996,6 +3996,7 @@ static int stmmac_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int
new_mtu)
{
struct stmmac_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
int txfifosz = priv->plat->tx_fifo_size;
+ const int mtu = new_mtu;
if (txfifosz == 0)
txfifosz = priv->dma_cap.tx_fifo_size;
@@ -4013,7 +4014,7 @@ static int stmmac_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int
new_mtu)
if ((txfifosz < new_mtu) || (new_mtu > BUF_SIZE_16KiB))
return -EINVAL;
- dev->mtu = new_mtu;
+ dev->mtu = mtu;
netdev_update_features(dev);
--
2.27.0
