Probe Request from legacy STAs #34

chunyeow · 2013-08-21T19:25:34Z

Previously, the mesh STA will respond to probe request from legacy STA. This is intended to allow wpa_supplicant could switch the interface type and join a mesh network if desired. However, after considering the amount of management traffic generated to the network, we decide that the mesh STA will respond to the probe request from legacy STA only if the mesh ID is included.

A patch will be submitted upstream soon.

Patch here.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg111464.html

As the new x86 CPU bootup printout format code maintainer, I am taking immediate action to improve and clean (and thus indulge my OCD) the reporting of the cores when coming up online. Fix padding to a right-hand alignment, cleanup code and bind reporting width to the max number of supported CPUs on the system, like this: [ 0.074509] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 OK [ 0.644008] smpboot: Booting Node 1, Processors: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 OK [ 1.245006] smpboot: Booting Node 2, Processors: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 OK [ 1.864005] smpboot: Booting Node 3, Processors: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 OK [ 2.489005] smpboot: Booting Node 4, Processors: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 OK [ 3.093005] smpboot: Booting Node 5, Processors: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 OK [ 3.698005] smpboot: Booting Node 6, Processors: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 OK [ 4.304005] smpboot: Booting Node 7, Processors: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 OK [ 4.961413] Brought up 64 CPUs and this: [ 0.072367] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 OK [ 0.686329] Brought up 8 CPUs Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Libin <huawei.libin@huawei.com> Cc: wangyijing@huawei.com Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com Cc: guohanjun@huawei.com Cc: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130927143554.GF4422@pd.tnic Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Turn it into (for example): [ 0.073380] x86: Booting SMP configuration: [ 0.074005] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 [ 0.603005] .... node #1, CPUs: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 [ 1.200005] .... node #2, CPUs: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 [ 1.796005] .... node #3, CPUs: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 [ 2.393005] .... node #4, CPUs: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 [ 2.996005] .... node #5, CPUs: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 [ 3.600005] .... node #6, CPUs: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 [ 4.202005] .... node #7, CPUs: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 [ 4.811005] .... node #8, CPUs: #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 [ 5.421006] .... node #9, CPUs: #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 [ 6.032005] .... node #10, CPUs: #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 [ 6.648006] .... node #11, CPUs: #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 [ 7.262005] .... node #12, CPUs: #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 [ 7.865005] .... node #13, CPUs: #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 [ 8.466005] .... node #14, CPUs: #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 [ 9.073006] .... node #15, CPUs: #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 [ 9.679901] x86: Booted up 16 nodes, 128 CPUs and drop useless elements. Change num_digits() to hpa's division-avoiding, cell-phone-typed version which he went at great lengths and pains to submit on a Saturday evening. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: huawei.libin@huawei.com Cc: wangyijing@huawei.com Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com Cc: guohanjun@huawei.com Cc: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130930095624.GB16383@pd.tnic Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Booting a mx6 with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING we get: ====================================================== [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.12.0-rc4-next-20131009+ #34 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------- swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock: (&imx_drm_device->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<804575a8>] imx_drm_encoder_get_mux_id+0x28/0x98 but task is already holding lock: (&crtc->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<802fe778>] drm_modeset_lock_all+0x40/0x54 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&crtc->mutex){+.+...}: [<800777d0>] __lock_acquire+0x18d4/0x1c24 [<80077fec>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x7c [<805ead5c>] _mutex_lock_nest_lock+0x58/0x3a8 [<802fec50>] drm_crtc_init+0x48/0xa8 [<80457c88>] imx_drm_add_crtc+0xd4/0x144 [<8045e2e8>] ipu_drm_probe+0x114/0x1fc [<80312278>] platform_drv_probe+0x20/0x50 [<80310c68>] driver_probe_device+0x110/0x22c [<80310e20>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 [<8030f218>] bus_for_each_dev+0x5c/0x90 [<80310750>] driver_attach+0x20/0x28 [<8031034c>] bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x1dc [<803114d8>] driver_register+0x80/0xfc [<80312198>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 [<808172fc>] ipu_drm_driver_init+0x18/0x20 [<800088c0>] do_one_initcall+0xfc/0x160 [<807e7c5c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x104/0x1d4 [<805e2930>] kernel_init+0x10/0xec [<8000ea68>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c -> #1 (&dev->mode_config.mutex){+.+.+.}: [<800777d0>] __lock_acquire+0x18d4/0x1c24 [<80077fec>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x7c [<805eb100>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x3a4 [<802fe758>] drm_modeset_lock_all+0x20/0x54 [<802fead4>] drm_encoder_init+0x20/0x7c [<80457ae4>] imx_drm_add_encoder+0x88/0xec [<80459838>] imx_ldb_probe+0x344/0x4fc [<80312278>] platform_drv_probe+0x20/0x50 [<80310c68>] driver_probe_device+0x110/0x22c [<80310e20>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 [<8030f218>] bus_for_each_dev+0x5c/0x90 [<80310750>] driver_attach+0x20/0x28 [<8031034c>] bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x1dc [<803114d8>] driver_register+0x80/0xfc [<80312198>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 [<8081722c>] imx_ldb_driver_init+0x18/0x20 [<800088c0>] do_one_initcall+0xfc/0x160 [<807e7c5c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x104/0x1d4 [<805e2930>] kernel_init+0x10/0xec [<8000ea68>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c -> #0 (&imx_drm_device->mutex){+.+.+.}: [<805e510c>] print_circular_bug+0x74/0x2e0 [<80077ad0>] __lock_acquire+0x1bd4/0x1c24 [<80077fec>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x7c [<805eb100>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x3a4 [<804575a8>] imx_drm_encoder_get_mux_id+0x28/0x98 [<80459a98>] imx_ldb_encoder_prepare+0x34/0x114 [<802ef724>] drm_crtc_helper_set_mode+0x1f0/0x4c0 [<802f0344>] drm_crtc_helper_set_config+0x828/0x99c [<802ff270>] drm_mode_set_config_internal+0x5c/0xdc [<802eebe0>] drm_fb_helper_set_par+0x50/0xb4 [<802af580>] fbcon_init+0x490/0x500 [<802dd104>] visual_init+0xa8/0xf8 [<802df414>] do_bind_con_driver+0x140/0x37c [<802df764>] do_take_over_console+0x114/0x1c4 [<802af65c>] do_fbcon_takeover+0x6c/0xd4 [<802b2b30>] fbcon_event_notify+0x7c8/0x818 [<80049954>] notifier_call_chain+0x4c/0x8c [<80049cd8>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x50/0x68 [<80049d10>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x28 [<802a75f0>] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x1c/0x24 [<802a9224>] register_framebuffer+0x188/0x268 [<802ee994>] drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x2bc/0x4b8 [<802f118c>] drm_fbdev_cma_init+0x7c/0xec [<80817288>] imx_fb_helper_init+0x54/0x90 [<800088c0>] do_one_initcall+0xfc/0x160 [<807e7c5c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x104/0x1d4 [<805e2930>] kernel_init+0x10/0xec [<8000ea68>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &imx_drm_device->mutex --> &dev->mode_config.mutex --> &crtc->mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&crtc->mutex); lock(&dev->mode_config.mutex); lock(&crtc->mutex); lock(&imx_drm_device->mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 6 locks held by swapper/0/1: #0: (registration_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<802a90bc>] register_framebuffer+0x20/0x268 #1: (&fb_info->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<802a7a90>] lock_fb_info+0x20/0x44 #2: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<802a9218>] register_framebuffer+0x17c/0x268 #3: ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<80049cbc>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x34/0x68 #4: (&dev->mode_config.mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<802fe758>] drm_modeset_lock_all+0x20/0x54 #5: (&crtc->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<802fe778>] drm_modeset_lock_all+0x40/0x54 In order to avoid this lockdep warning, remove the locking from imx_drm_encoder_get_mux_id() and imx_drm_crtc_panel_format_pins(). Tested on a mx6sabrelite and mx53qsb. Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk> Tested-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

chunyeow closed this as completed Aug 23, 2013

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Probe Request from legacy STAs #34

Probe Request from legacy STAs #34

chunyeow commented Aug 21, 2013

Probe Request from legacy STAs #34

Probe Request from legacy STAs #34

Comments

chunyeow commented Aug 21, 2013