Hi Arnd,
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:03:02 +0100
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, at 15:08, Herve Codina wrote:
> > @@ -272,6 +274,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct
> > qmc_chan_info *info)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
> > +
> > info->mode = chan->mode;
> > info->rx_fs_rate = tsa_info.rx_fs_rate;
> > info->rx_bit_rate = tsa_info.rx_bit_rate;
> > @@ -280,6 +284,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct
> > qmc_chan_info *info)
> > info->tx_bit_rate = tsa_info.tx_bit_rate;
> > info->nb_rx_ts = hweight64(chan->rx_ts_mask);
> >
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> I would normally use spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave()
> in functions that are only called outside of atomic context.
I would prefer to keep spin_lock_irqsave() here.
This function is part of the API and so, its quite difficult to ensure
that all calls (current and future) will be done outside of an atomic
context.
>
> > +static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan);
> > +
> > int qmc_chan_stop(struct qmc_chan *chan, int direction)
> > {
> ...
> > -static void qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
> > +static int qmc_setup_chan_trnsync(struct qmc *qmc, struct qmc_chan *chan);
> > +
> > +static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
> > {
>
> Can you reorder the static functions in a way that avoids the
> forward declarations?
Yes, sure.
I will do that in the next iteration.
Thanks for the review,
Best regards,
Hervé
