From: liqiang <liqiang64@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:21:47 +0800
> @@ -596,10 +632,26 @@ static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_next_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
> static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_first_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
> int *buf_lst)
> {
> - *buf_lst = 0;
> + smc_llc_lock_in_turn(lgr->rmbs_lock, buf_lst, SMC_LLC_INTURN_LOCK_INIT);
> return smc_llc_get_next_rmb(lgr, buf_lst, NULL);
> }
>
> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
> +{
> + int i = 0;
> +
> + for (; i < nums; i++)
> + down_write(&lock[i]);
LOCKDEP will complain here. You may want to test with
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
> +}
> +
> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrunlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
> +{
> + int i = 0;
> +
> + for (; i < nums; i++)
> + up_write(&lock[i]);
> +}
> +
> static int smc_llc_fill_ext_v2(struct smc_llc_msg_add_link_v2_ext *ext,
> struct smc_link *link, struct smc_link *link_new)
> {
