Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-153404-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:04:13 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Jeongjun Park <aha310510@gmail.com>
Cc: kuba@kernel.org, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	syzbot+8e03da5d64bc85098811@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v3] net: hams: Fix deadlock caused by unsafe-irq lock
 in sp_get()
Message-ID: <7d690606-7abe-42db-80d4-2ef979e8303b@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240419200453.13301f29@kernel.org>
 <20240420082102.63841-1-aha310510@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240420082102.63841-1-aha310510@gmail.com>

The ealier versions didn't build.  I feel like switching from _irqsave()
to _irq() was wrong but you just did it because you couldn't figure out
how to make _irqsave() compile...

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:21:02PM +0900, Jeongjun Park wrote:
> After looking at this email and testing everything, I have confirmed
> that both patches are running without any problems in my environment,
> and the patchwork test outputs an unknown error in the patch
> in ap_get().

What does "the patchwork test outputs an unknown error in the patch in
ap_get()" mean?

> 
> But the patch for sp_get() is confirmed to have no problem,
> can you tell me more about the problem?
> 
> Thanks.

You say that it was tested but syzbot says that it doesn't have a
reproducer for this warning.

regards,
dan carpenter