On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 10:11 -0400, Bastien Philbert wrote: > > On 2016-04-06 09:38 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 09:21 -0400, Bastien Philbert wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > That's not good enough. If your theory is correct, lockdep should > > be > > dropping an already unlocked assertion in this codepath ... do you > > see > > this? > > > > James > > > > > Yes I do. You mean you don't see the lockdep assert, since you're asking to drop the patch? > For now just drop the patch but I am still concerned that we are > double unlocking here. Really, no. The pattern in the code indicates the lock is expected to be held. This can be wrong (sometimes code moves or people forget), but if it is wrong we'll get an assert about unlock of an already unlocked lock. If there's no assert, the lock is held on entry and the code is correct. You're proposing patches based on misunderstandings of the code which aren't backed up by actual issues and wasting everyone's time to look at them. Please begin with the hard evidence of a problem first, so post the lockdep assert in the changelog so we know there's a real problem. James -- 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
