On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:44:09PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-01-29 12:44 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:24:09AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019-01-29 10:47 a.m., jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> +bool pci_test_p2p(struct device *devA, struct device *devB)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct pci_dev *pciA, *pciB;
> >>> + bool ret;
> >>> + int tmp;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * For now we only support PCIE peer to peer but other inter-connect
> >>> + * can be added.
> >>> + */
> >>> + pciA = find_parent_pci_dev(devA);
> >>> + pciB = find_parent_pci_dev(devB);
> >>> + if (pciA == NULL || pciB == NULL) {
> >>> + ret = false;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + tmp = upstream_bridge_distance(pciA, pciB, NULL);
> >>> + ret = tmp < 0 ? false : true;
> >>> +
> >>> +out:
> >>> + pci_dev_put(pciB);
> >>> + pci_dev_put(pciA);
> >>> + return false;
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_test_p2p);
> >>
> >> This function only ever returns false....
> >
> > I guess it was nevr actually tested :(
> >
> > I feel really worried about passing random 'struct device' pointers into
> > the PCI layer. Are we _sure_ it can handle this properly?
>
> Yes, there are a couple of pci_p2pdma functions that take struct devices
> directly simply because it's way more convenient for the caller. That's
> what find_parent_pci_dev() takes care of (it returns false if the device
> is not a PCI device). Whether that's appropriate here is hard to say
> seeing we haven't seen any caller code.
Caller code as a reference (i already given that link in other part of
thread but just so that people don't have to follow all branches).
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~glisse/linux/commit/?h=hmm-p2p&id=401a567696eafb1d4faf7054ab0d7c3a16a5ef06
Cheers,
Jérôme
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
