On 29.3.2019. 15:32, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Hello, > > On 24/03/19(Sun) 01:00, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> while playing around with stp and pair interfaces and using exactly the >> same example as in man (4) pair >> >> ifconfig pair0 up >> ifconfig pair1 rdomain 1 patch pair0 up >> ifconfig pair2 up >> ifconfig pair3 rdomain 1 patch pair2 up >> ifconfig bridge0 add pair0 add pair2 stp pair0 stp pair2 up >> ifconfig bridge1 add pair1 add pair3 stp pair1 stp pair3 up >> >> and while destroying/creating stp root pair interfaces with >> kern.pool_debug=1 and kern.splassert=2 i'm getting this traces >> >> splassert: bstp_notify_rtage: want 2 have 0 >> Starting stack trace... >> bstp_update_tc(ffff8000004e0c00) at bstp_update_tc+0x338 >> bstp_tick(ffff800000159700) at bstp_tick+0x357 >> softclock(0) at softclock+0x123 >> softintr_dispatch(0) at softintr_dispatch+0x11e >> Xsoftclock(0,0,1388,0,ffff800000021800,ffffffff81d0b6d0) at Xsoftclock+0x1f >> acpicpu_idle() at acpicpu_idle+0x281 >> sched_idle(ffffffff81d0aff0) at sched_idle+0x235 >> end trace frame: 0x0, count: 250 >> End of stack trace. > > It's an incorrect assert. What's currently protecting all the bridge > data structures is the KERNEL_LOCK(). Does the diff below help?
Yes it helps. With this diff i can't reproduce traces .. Tnx ..
