Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:47:36 +0200
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [igb] netconsole triggers warning in netpoll_poll_dev
Message-ID: <20210426064736.7efynita4brzos4u@spock.localdomain>
References: <20210406123619.rhvtr73xwwlbu2ll@spock.localdomain>
 <20210406114734.0e00cb2f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <20210407060053.wyo75mqwcva6w6ci@spock.localdomain>
 <20210407083748.56b9c261@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAKgT0UfLLQycLsAZQ98ofBGYPwejA6zHbG6QsNrU92mizS7e0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210407110722.1eb4ebf2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAKgT0UcQXVOifi_2r_Y6meg_zvHDBf1me8VwA4pvEtEMzOaw2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210423081944.kvvm4v7jcdyj74l3@spock.localdomain>
 <20210423155836.25ef1e77@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210423155836.25ef1e77@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:58:36PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:19:44 +0200 Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:06:29PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > > Sure, that's simplest. I wasn't sure something is supposed to prevent
> > > > this condition or if it's okay to cover it up.  
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure it is okay to cover it up. In this case the "budget -
> > > 1" is supposed to be the upper limit on what can be reported. I think
> > > it was assuming an unsigned value anyway.
> > > 
> > > Another alternative would be to default clean_complete to !!budget.
> > > Then if budget is 0 clean_complete would always return false.  
> > 
> > So, among all the variants, which one to try? Or there was a separate
> > patch sent to address this?
> 
> Alex's suggestion is probably best.
> 
> I'm not aware of the fix being posted. Perhaps you could take over and
> post the patch if Intel doesn't chime in?

So, IIUC, Alex suggests this:

```
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
index a45cd2b416c8..7503d5bf168a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
@@ -7981,7 +7981,7 @@ static int igb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
 						     struct igb_q_vector,
 						     napi);
 	bool clean_complete = true;
-	int work_done = 0;
+	unsigned int work_done = 0;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_IGB_DCA
 	if (q_vector->adapter->flags & IGB_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED)
@@ -8008,7 +8008,7 @@ static int igb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
 	if (likely(napi_complete_done(napi, work_done)))
 		igb_ring_irq_enable(q_vector);
 
-	return min(work_done, budget - 1);
+	return min_t(unsigned int, work_done, budget - 1);
 }
 
 /**
```

Am I right?

Thanks.

-- 
  Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)