On 2016-04-06 03:48 AM, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Bastien Philbert > <bastienphilbert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This fixes backwards locking in the function __csio_unreg_rnode to >> properly lock before the call to the function csio_unreg_rnode and >> not unlock with spin_unlock_irq as this would not allow the proper >> protection for concurrent access on the shared csio_hw structure >> pointer hw. In addition switch the locking after the critical region >> function call to properly unlock instead with spin_unlock_irq on >> >> Signed-off-by: Bastien Philbert <bastienphilbert@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c >> index e9c3b04..029a09e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c >> @@ -580,9 +580,9 @@ __csio_unreg_rnode(struct csio_rnode *rn) >> ln->last_scan_ntgts--; >> } >> >> - spin_unlock_irq(&hw->lock); >> - csio_unreg_rnode(rn); >> spin_lock_irq(&hw->lock); >> + csio_unreg_rnode(rn); >> + spin_unlock_irq(&hw->lock); > > Are you _certain_ this is correct? This construct usually appears when > a function has a particular lock held, then needs to unlock it to call > some other function. Are you _certain_ that this isn't the case? > > Thanks, > Yes I am pretty certain this is correct. I checked the paths that called this function and it was weired that none of them gradded the spinlock before hand. Cheers, Bastien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
