On 2022-10-20 15:25, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
+#include <net/switchdev.h> +#include <linux/list.h> +#include "chip.h" +#include "global1.h" +#include "switchdev.h"
+static void mv88e6xxx_atu_locked_entry_purge(struct mv88e6xxx_atu_locked_entry *ale,
bool notify, bool take_nl_lock)+{
- struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info info = {
.addr = ale->mac,.vid = ale->vid,.locked = true,.offloaded = true,- };
- struct mv88e6xxx_atu_entry entry;
- struct net_device *brport;
- struct dsa_port *dp;
- entry.portvec = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_PORT_VECTOR_NO_EGRESS;
- entry.state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_UNUSED;
- entry.trunk = false;
- ether_addr_copy(entry.mac, ale->mac);
- mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(ale->chip);
- mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_loadpurge(ale->chip, ale->fid, &entry);
- mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(ale->chip);
- dp = dsa_to_port(ale->chip->ds, ale->port);
- if (notify) {
if (take_nl_lock)rtnl_lock();Is this tested with lockdep? I see the function is called with other locks held (p->ale_list_lock). Isn't there a lock inversion anywhere? Locks always need to be taken in the same order, and rtnl_lock is a pretty high level lock, not exactly the kind you could take just like that.
I am very sure that there is no lock inversions or double locks taken. It is only in the clean-up from time-out of driver locked entries that the nl lock needs to be taken (as the code reveals). In all other instances, the nl lock is already taken as far as this implementation goes.