On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:24:05PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:00:27 -0800
> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:45:01PM -0700, Myron Stowe wrote:
> > > 'pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup()' is used to maintain FW-assigned BIOS BAR
> > > values for reinstatement when normal resource assignment attempts
> > > fail and must be called with the 'pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock' spinlock
> > > held.
> > >
> > > This patch adds a WARN_ON notification if the spinlock is not currently
> > > held by the caller.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > index 33e6a0b..831971e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ static struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *map;
> > >
> > > + WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock));
> > > +
> >
> > What is this going to help with? How can someone then recover from this
> > issue? Just adding a warning message isn't going to fix any problems
> > here, why not fix the root cause?
>
> It's just a self-documenting assert; doesn't trigger anything and has
> more functionality than
> /* Must hold the fwaddrmap_lock here */
Don't we have sparse markups that we can use to verify this instead
somehow? Adding asserts isn't the nicest, as what will a user really do
about this if it ever gets hit? And if a user isn't supposed to do
anything, then yes, a comment would be best I would think.
But I didn't realize you had asked for this, so no big deal, I'll go
back to lurking :)
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
