Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and
listen_lock have to be bh-safe?
Do the netrom and rose locks have to be bh-safe?
A device might be deleted after lookup in the SIOCADDRT ioctl but before it's
being used.
Routes to a device being taken down might be deleted by ax25_rt_device_down
but added by somebody else before the device has been deleted fully.
The ax25_rt_find_route synopsys is pervert but I somehow had to deal with
the race caused by the static variable in it's previous implementation.
Implement proper socket locking in netrom and rose.
Check socket locking when ax25_rcv is sending to raw sockets. In particular
ax25_send_to_raw() seems fishy. Heck - ax25_rcv is fishy.
Handle XID and TEST frames properly.
f='/cgit.cgi/linux/net-next.git/'>net-next.git
|
net-next plumbings | Tobias Klauser |
x86/ioapic: Restore IO-APIC irq_chip retrigger callback
commit d32932d02e18 removed the irq_retrigger callback from the IO-APIC
chip and did not add it to the new IO-APIC-IR irq chip.
Unfortunately the software resend fallback is not enabled on X86, so edge
interrupts which are received during the lazy disabled state of the
interrupt line are not retriggered and therefor lost.
Restore the callbacks.
[ tglx: Massaged changelog ]
Fixes: d32932d02e18 ("x86/irq: Convert IOAPIC to use hierarchical irqdomain interfaces")
Signed-off-by: Ruslan Ruslichenko <rruslich@cisco.com>
Cc: xe-linux-external@cisco.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1484662432-13580-1-git-send-email-rruslich@cisco.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>