net: e100: Remove in_interrupt() usage and pointless GFP_ATOMIC allocation
e100_hw_init() invokes e100_self_test() only if in_interrupt() returns false as e100_self_test() uses msleep() which requires sleepable task context. The in_interrupt() check is incomplete because in_interrupt() cannot catch callers from contexts which have just preemption or interrupts disabled. e100_hw_init() is invoked from: - e100_loopback_test() which clearly is sleepable task context as the function uses msleep() itself. - e100_up() which clearly is sleepable task context as well because it invokes e100_alloc_cbs() abd request_irq() which both require sleepable task context due to GFP_KERNEL allocations and mutex_lock() operations. Remove the pointless in_interrupt() check. As a side effect of this analysis it turned out that e100_rx_alloc_list() which is only invoked from e100_loopback_test() and e100_up() pointlessly uses a GFP_ATOMIC allocation. The next invoked function e100_alloc_cbs() is using GFP_KERNEL already. Change the allocation mode in e100_rx_alloc_list() to GFP_KERNEL as well. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8aed9064c6
commit
f127bab4fa
@ -1531,7 +1531,7 @@ static int e100_hw_init(struct nic *nic)
|
||||
e100_hw_reset(nic);
|
||||
|
||||
netif_err(nic, hw, nic->netdev, "e100_hw_init\n");
|
||||
if (!in_interrupt() && (err = e100_self_test(nic)))
|
||||
if ((err = e100_self_test(nic)))
|
||||
return err;
|
||||
|
||||
if ((err = e100_phy_init(nic)))
|
||||
@ -2155,7 +2155,7 @@ static int e100_rx_alloc_list(struct nic *nic)
|
||||
nic->rx_to_use = nic->rx_to_clean = NULL;
|
||||
nic->ru_running = RU_UNINITIALIZED;
|
||||
|
||||
if (!(nic->rxs = kcalloc(count, sizeof(struct rx), GFP_ATOMIC)))
|
||||
if (!(nic->rxs = kcalloc(count, sizeof(struct rx), GFP_KERNEL)))
|
||||
return -ENOMEM;
|
||||
|
||||
for (rx = nic->rxs, i = 0; i < count; rx++, i++) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user