Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:57:16PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > @@ -5488,9 +5488,10 @@ static void pci_bus_lock(struct pci_bus *bus)
> >
> > pci_dev_lock(bus->self);
> > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> > - pci_dev_lock(dev);
> > if (dev->subordinate)
> > pci_bus_lock(dev->subordinate);
> > + else
> > + pci_dev_lock(dev);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -5502,7 +5503,8 @@ static void pci_bus_unlock(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> > if (dev->subordinate)
> > pci_bus_unlock(dev->subordinate);
> > - pci_dev_unlock(dev);
> > + else
> > + pci_dev_unlock(dev);
> > }
> > pci_dev_unlock(bus->self);
> > }
>
> I realized pci_slot_lock() has the same problem. I wasn't able to test
> that path from not having a pcie topology with a subordinate on the slot
> device, but it follows the same pattern. Same thing with
> pci_bus_trylock() for that matter, so I will make a new version.
I can take another look at that one as well, but feel free to carry my
Reviewed-by tag on that one, and just trust that I'll scream if I notice
something late.
