On Apr 11 Chris Boot wrote:
> +static void session_check_for_reset(struct sbp_session *sess)
> +{
> + bool card_valid = false;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&sess->lock);
> +
> + if (sess->card) {
> + spin_lock_irq(&sess->card->lock);
> + card_valid = (sess->card->local_node != NULL);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&sess->card->lock);
> +
> + if (!card_valid) {
> + fw_card_put(sess->card);
> + sess->card = NULL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (!card_valid || (sess->generation != sess->card->generation)) {
> + pr_info("Waiting for reconnect from node: %016llx\n",
> + sess->guid);
> +
> + sess->node_id = -1;
> + sess->reconnect_expires = get_jiffies_64() +
> + ((sess->reconnect_hold + 1) * HZ);
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&sess->lock);
> +}
The card->local_node != NULL test by itself is atomic, it does not benefit
from being wrapped by card->lock acquisition.
Well, OK, the lock effectively forces the compiler to determine the value
of card_valid only once. If the lock weren't there I guess the compiler
might feel entitled to reload card->local_node in the second !card_valid
test. But even if you lose ACCESS_ONCE behavior by removing the card->lock
acquisition, I can't see how that could be detrimental relative to the
current code.
I am wondering on the other hand if there isn't actually a dependency
between this local_node test and something else, e.g. the generation test.
I.e. might the locking be incomplete? Not sure about that. I think I
rather want to look at that again when I received the code through
mainline.
BTW "card_valid" sounds rather generic; maybe call it "topology_valid"?
Either way, it can turn valid or invalid any time when firewire-core gets
to handle a self-ID-complete event.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-- -=-- -===-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
