Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755331Ab0A0OpO (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:45:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755285Ab0A0OpM (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:45:12 -0500 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:59937 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755317Ab0A0OpK (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:45:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4B60516F.4020106@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:45:03 +0100 From: Stefan Bader User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willy Tarreau CC: Greg KH , "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jie Yang , stable@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable-review@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [20/98] atl1c:use common_task instead of reset_task and link_chg_task References: <20100126233950.GA5372@kroah.com> <20100126233923.487128431@mini.kroah.org> <20100127052531.GK20093@1wt.eu> In-Reply-To: <20100127052531.GK20093@1wt.eu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1842 Lines: 45 Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 03:33:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> From: Jie Yang >> >> commit cb19054697e92a793f336380fd72c588521178ff upstream. >> >> use common_task instead of reset_task and link_chg_task, so it fix "call cancel_work_sync >> from the work itself". >> >> Signed-off-by: Jie Yang >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller >> Cc: Ben Hutchings >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > I'm going to test this one. I'm randomly seeing my ASUS 1005HA > hanging after I replug the network cable. I noticed that the > driver from the Atheros site doesn't have the issue at all. I > spent a week-end trying to eliminate almost all of the diffs > between the two drivers to try to spot the faulty code chunk, > until I realized that I went past the failure point without > noticing in time because the issue was too much random :-( Not sure how much this is true or helps. While looking over that patch I was wondering whether there could be a problem of not having an explicit cancel_work_sync on the way down. It just seems to disable actions by setting the flags to 0 but I somehow it felt like it still could be scheduled to run doing nothing... -Stefan > Clearly a non-bisectable issue. But with just this fix, I'll > be able to tell if the problem is definitely over. > > Regards, > Willy > > _______________________________________________ > Stable-review mailing list > Stable-review@linux.kernel.org > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable-review -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/