> Il 06/08/2021 11:25 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
>
> On 05.08.2021 22:16:06, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.h
> > > > @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ struct c_can_priv {
> > > > atomic_t sie_pending;
> > > > unsigned long tx_dir;
> > > > int last_status;
> > > > + spinlock_t tx_lock;
> > >
> > > What does the spin lock protect?
> [...]
> > > > @@ -483,7 +469,11 @@ static netdev_tx_t c_can_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > > if (c_can_get_tx_free(tx_ring) == 0)
> > > > netif_stop_queue(dev);
> > > >
> > > > - obj = idx + priv->msg_obj_tx_first;
> > > > + spin_lock_bh(&priv->tx_lock);
> > >
> > > What does the spin_lock protect? The ndo_start_xmit function is properly
> > > serialized by the networking core.
> > >
> >
> > The spin_lock protects the access to the IF_TX interface.
>
> How? You only use the spin_lock in c_can_start_xmit(), but not anywhere
> else.
>
> > Enabling the transmission of cached messages occur inside interrupt
>
> The call chain is c_can_poll() -> c_can_do_tx(), and c_can_poll() is
> called from NAPI, which is not the IRQ handler.
>
> > and the use of the IF_RX interface, which would avoid the use of the
> > spinlock, has not been validated by the tests.
>
> What do you mean be has not been validated?
It's been a while since I submitted the series and I certainly got confused.
>
> The driver already uses IF_RX to avoid concurrent access in
> c_can_do_tx() for c_can_inval_tx_object() [1], why not use IF_RX for
> c_can_object_put(), too?
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210302215435.18286-4-dariobin@xxxxxxxxx
Right!
Thanks and Regards,
Dario
>
> Marc
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
> Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
> Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
