Re: [PATCH v3 19/40] cxl/port: Up-level cxl_add_dport() locking requirements to the caller

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 3:47 PM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 22-01-23 16:30:20, Dan Williams wrote:
> > In preparation for moving dport enumeration into the core, require the
> > port device lock to be acquired by the caller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cxl/acpi.c            |    2 ++
> >  drivers/cxl/core/port.c       |    3 +--
> >  tools/testing/cxl/mock_acpi.c |    4 ++++
> >  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/acpi.c b/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
> > index ab2b76532272..e596dc375267 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
> > @@ -342,7 +342,9 @@ static int add_host_bridge_dport(struct device *match, void *arg)
> >               return 0;
> >       }
> >
> > +     device_lock(&root_port->dev);
> >       rc = cxl_add_dport(root_port, match, uid, ctx.chbcr);
> > +     device_unlock(&root_port->dev);
> >       if (rc) {
> >               dev_err(host, "failed to add downstream port: %s\n",
> >                       dev_name(match));
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > index ec9587e52423..c51a10154e29 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static int add_dport(struct cxl_port *port, struct cxl_dport *new)
> >  {
> >       struct cxl_dport *dup;
> >
> > -     cxl_device_lock(&port->dev);
> > +     device_lock_assert(&port->dev);
> >       dup = find_dport(port, new->port_id);
> >       if (dup)
> >               dev_err(&port->dev,
> > @@ -525,7 +525,6 @@ static int add_dport(struct cxl_port *port, struct cxl_dport *new)
> >                       dev_name(dup->dport));
> >       else
> >               list_add_tail(&new->list, &port->dports);
> > -     cxl_device_unlock(&port->dev);
> >
> >       return dup ? -EEXIST : 0;
> >  }
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/mock_acpi.c b/tools/testing/cxl/mock_acpi.c
> > index 4c8a493ace56..667c032ccccf 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/cxl/mock_acpi.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/mock_acpi.c
> > @@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ static int match_add_root_port(struct pci_dev *pdev, void *data)
> >
> >       /* TODO walk DVSEC to find component register base */
> >       port_num = FIELD_GET(PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_PN, lnkcap);
> > +     device_lock(&port->dev);
> >       rc = cxl_add_dport(port, &pdev->dev, port_num, CXL_RESOURCE_NONE);
> > +     device_unlock(&port->dev);
> >       if (rc) {
> >               dev_err(dev, "failed to add dport: %s (%d)\n",
> >                       dev_name(&pdev->dev), rc);
> > @@ -78,7 +80,9 @@ static int mock_add_root_port(struct platform_device *pdev, void *data)
> >       struct device *dev = ctx->dev;
> >       int rc;
> >
> > +     device_lock(&port->dev);
> >       rc = cxl_add_dport(port, &pdev->dev, pdev->id, CXL_RESOURCE_NONE);
> > +     device_unlock(&port->dev);
> >       if (rc) {
> >               dev_err(dev, "failed to add dport: %s (%d)\n",
> >                       dev_name(&pdev->dev), rc);
> >
>
> Since I really don't understand, perhaps an explanation as to why you aren't
> using cxl_device_lock would help? (Is it just to get around not having a
> cxl_device_lock_assert())?

Whoops, this gets fixed up later on in , but I rebased this patch and
didn't notice that I inadvertently dropped the lockdep stuff. Will
rebase this hiccup out of the history.



[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux