Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] net: cpsw_new: Execute ndo_set_rx_mode callback in a work queue

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 12:41:20 -0800

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:34:07 +0800 Kevin Hao wrote:
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new.c

What's your plan for fixing drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c ?
My preference would be to post both of the fixes at once,
I think this version is quite close, just a couple of nit picks
below..

> @@ -248,15 +248,25 @@ static int cpsw_purge_all_mc(struct net_device *ndev, const u8 *addr, int num)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static void cpsw_ndo_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *ndev)
> +static void cpsw_ndo_set_rx_mode_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> -	struct cpsw_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> +	struct cpsw_priv *priv = container_of(work, struct cpsw_priv, rx_mode_work);
>  	struct cpsw_common *cpsw = priv->cpsw;
> +	struct net_device *ndev = priv->ndev;
>  
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +	if (!netif_running(ndev)) {
> +		rtnl_unlock();
> +		return;

since the "undo" logic is getting complex you should use a goto.
Replace the unlock and the return; here with:

		goto unlock_rtnl;

> +	}
> +
> +	netif_addr_lock_bh(ndev);
>  	if (ndev->flags & IFF_PROMISC) {
>  		/* Enable promiscuous mode */
>  		cpsw_set_promiscious(ndev, true);
>  		cpsw_ale_set_allmulti(cpsw->ale, IFF_ALLMULTI, priv->emac_port);
> +		netif_addr_unlock_bh(ndev);
> +		rtnl_unlock();

		goto unlock_addr;

>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -270,6 +280,15 @@ static void cpsw_ndo_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *ndev)
>  	/* add/remove mcast address either for real netdev or for vlan */
>  	__hw_addr_ref_sync_dev(&ndev->mc, ndev, cpsw_add_mc_addr,
>  			       cpsw_del_mc_addr);

And place a labels here:

unlock_addr:

> +	netif_addr_unlock_bh(ndev);

unlock_rtnl:

> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +}

>  	for (i = 0; i < cpsw->data.slaves; i++) {
> -		if (!cpsw->slaves[i].ndev)
> +		ndev = cpsw->slaves[i].ndev;
> +		if (!ndev)
>  			continue;
>  
> -		unregister_netdev(cpsw->slaves[i].ndev);
> +		priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> +		disable_work_sync(&priv->rx_mode_work);
> +		unregister_netdev(ndev);

I understand that this is safe but I think that more logical ordering
would be to shut things down _after_ object is unregistered.
-- 
pw-bot: cr