On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 15:37 +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>
> 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>
Thanks for your review. Yeah it's the price we pay for working
intermediate states. I think if you hadn't already invested the time to
look at the conmbined patch it might still be easier to review the
split patches.
