Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got a conflict in:
drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/netdev.c
between commit:
ebfb5e8fc8b4 ("Revert "wifi: wilc1000: convert list management to RCU"")
from the wireless tree and commit:
6fe46d5c0a84 ("wifi: wilc1000: set net device registration as last step during interface creation")
from the wireless-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/netdev.c
index 710e29bea560,4e2698528a49..000000000000
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/netdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/netdev.c
@@@ -679,9 -669,9 +672,9 @@@ static int wilc_set_mac_addr(struct net
return 0;
}
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
+ srcu_read_unlock(&wilc->srcu, srcu_idx);
- result = wilc_set_mac_address(vif, (u8 *)addr->sa_data);
+ result = wilc_set_mac_address(vif, addr->sa_data);
if (result)
return result;
@@@ -972,6 -959,28 +966,28 @@@ struct wilc_vif *wilc_netdev_ifc_init(s
vif->priv.wdev.iftype = type;
vif->priv.dev = ndev;
+ ndev->needs_free_netdev = true;
+ vif->iftype = vif_type;
+ vif->idx = wilc_get_available_idx(wl);
+ vif->mac_opened = 0;
+
+ memcpy(mac_address, wl->nv_mac_address, ETH_ALEN);
+ /* WILC firmware uses locally administered MAC address for the
+ * second virtual interface (bit 1 of first byte set), but
+ * since it is possibly not loaded/running yet, reproduce this behavior
+ * in the driver during interface creation.
+ */
+ if (vif->idx)
+ mac_address[0] |= 0x2;
+
+ eth_hw_addr_set(vif->ndev, mac_address);
+
+ mutex_lock(&wl->vif_mutex);
+ list_add_tail_rcu(&vif->list, &wl->vif_list);
+ wl->vif_num += 1;
+ mutex_unlock(&wl->vif_mutex);
- synchronize_rcu();
++ synchronize_srcu(&wl->srcu);
+
if (rtnl_locked)
ret = cfg80211_register_netdevice(ndev);
else
@@@ -979,26 -988,17 +995,17 @@@
if (ret) {
ret = -EFAULT;
- goto error;
+ goto error_remove_vif;
}
- ndev->needs_free_netdev = true;
- vif->iftype = vif_type;
- vif->idx = wilc_get_available_idx(wl);
- vif->mac_opened = 0;
- mutex_lock(&wl->vif_mutex);
- list_add_tail_rcu(&vif->list, &wl->vif_list);
- wl->vif_num += 1;
- mutex_unlock(&wl->vif_mutex);
- synchronize_srcu(&wl->srcu);
-
return vif;
- error:
- if (rtnl_locked)
- cfg80211_unregister_netdevice(ndev);
- else
- unregister_netdev(ndev);
+ error_remove_vif:
+ mutex_lock(&wl->vif_mutex);
+ list_del_rcu(&vif->list);
+ wl->vif_num -= 1;
+ mutex_unlock(&wl->vif_mutex);
- synchronize_rcu();
++ synchronize_srcu(&wl->srcu);
free_netdev(ndev);
return ERR_PTR(ret);
}
Alexis Lothoré <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello Kalle, Stephen,
>
> On 6/6/24 12:09, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Kalle Valo <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/netdev.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>> ebfb5e8fc8b4 ("Revert "wifi: wilc1000: convert list management to RCU"")
>>>>
>>>> from the wireless tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>> 6fe46d5c0a84 ("wifi: wilc1000: set net device registration as last
>>>> step during interface creation")
>>>>
>>>> from the wireless-next tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>>>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>>>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>>>> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
>>>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>>>> complex conflicts.
>>>
>>> Thanks. We need to figure out how we solve this conflict, most probably
>>> we'll ask network maintainers to fix it when they pull wireless-next.
>>
>> Alexis, you know wilc1000 the best. Could you double check the conflict
>> resolution, it somewhat complicated:>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>
>
> LGTM, and some quick testing on the linux-next tree with the corresponding merge
> commit showed no issue (no RCU warning, and mac address loading fix behaving
> properly)
Excellent, thank you so much.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches