Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <f103b4a29b7c1942f091bd7b90d7a927d72c20a2.camel@coelho.fi>
From:   Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Sat, 13 Mar 2021 18:32:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103131642290.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103021125430.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
         <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103080925230.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
         <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103130242460.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
         <87h7lfbowr.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net>
         <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103131642290.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: Fix softirq/hardirq disabling in
 iwl_pcie_enqueue_hcmd()
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2021-03-13 at 16:43 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Kalle Valo wrote:
> 
> > > > > From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's possible for iwl_pcie_enqueue_hcmd() to be called with hard IRQs 
> > > > > disabled (e.g. from LED core). We can't enable BHs in such a situation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Turn the unconditional BH-enable/BH-disable code into 
> > > > > hardirq-disable/conditional-enable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This fixes the warning below.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > friendly ping on this one ... 
> > > 
> > > Luca,
> > > 
> > > Johannes is telling me that he merged this patch internally, but I have no 
> > > idea what is happening to it ... ?
> > > 
> > > The reported splat is a clear bug, so it should be fixed one way or the 
> > > other.
> > 
> > Should I take this to wireless-drivers?
> 
> I can't speak for the maintainers, but as far as I am concerned, it 
> definitely is a 5.12 material, as it fixes real scheduling bug.

Yes, please take this to w-d.  We have a similar patch internally, but
there's a backlog and it will take me some time to get to it.  I'll
resolve eventual conflicts when time comes.

Thanks!

--
Cheers,
Luca.