On 07.07.23 12:56, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
[...]
> Instead of expanding the use of the clients_lock further add a separate
> array in struct ism_dev which references clients subscribed to the
> device's events and IRQs. This array is protected by ism->lock which is
> already taken in ism_handle_irq() and can be taken outside the IRQ
> handler when adding/removing subscribers or the accessing
typo? s/the accessing/accessing the/g
> ism->sba_client_arr[]. This also means that the clients_lock is no
> longer taken in IRQ context.
>
[...]
> @@ -554,6 +577,7 @@ static void ism_dev_add_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> add_work);
>
> client->add(client->tgt_ism);
> + ism_setup_forwarding(client, client->tgt_ism);
> atomic_dec(&client->tgt_ism->add_dev_cnt);
> wake_up(&client->tgt_ism->waitq);
> }
> @@ -691,7 +715,11 @@ static void ism_dev_remove_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct ism_client *client = container_of(work, struct ism_client,
> remove_work);
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&client->tgt_ism->lock, flags);
> + client->tgt_ism->subs[client->id] = NULL;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&client->tgt_ism->lock, flags);
> client->remove(client->tgt_ism);
> atomic_dec(&client->tgt_ism->free_clients_cnt);
> wake_up(&client->tgt_ism->waitq);
I am not sure I like the new split. here you fix ism_dev_add_work_func() and ism_dev_remove_work_func(),
that you remove in the next patch. But looks functionally ok to me.
Reviewed-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
