| Message ID | 1506212218-29103-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
I think this series makes a lot of sense overall; thanks for doing this work! I had a few comments on the individual patches. (This response would ordinarily be to the cover letter, but there isn't one, so I'm just responding to the first patch.) On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:16:54PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Commit b014e96d1abb ("PCI: Protect pci_error_handlers->reset_notify() usage > with device_lock()") added protection around pci_dev_restore() function so > that device specific remove callback does not cause a race condition > against hotplug. > > pci_dev_lock() usage has been forgotten in two different places in the > code. Adding locks for pci_slot_restore() and moving pci_dev_restore() > inside the locks for pci_try_reset_function(). > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c > index 6078dfc..23681f4 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c > @@ -4344,9 +4344,9 @@ int pci_try_reset_function(struct pci_dev *dev) > > pci_dev_save_and_disable(dev); > rc = __pci_reset_function_locked(dev); > + pci_dev_restore(dev); > pci_dev_unlock(dev); > > - pci_dev_restore(dev); > return rc; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_try_reset_function); > @@ -4546,7 +4546,9 @@ static void pci_slot_restore(struct pci_slot *slot) > list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list) { > if (!dev->slot || dev->slot != slot) > continue; > + pci_dev_lock(dev); > pci_dev_restore(dev); > + pci_dev_unlock(dev); > if (dev->subordinate) > pci_bus_restore(dev->subordinate); > } > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 10/11/2017 6:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > I think this series makes a lot of sense overall; thanks for doing > this work! I had a few comments on the individual patches. > > (This response would ordinarily be to the cover letter, but there > isn't one, so I'm just responding to the first patch.) Thanks, I was too lazy to type it up. I'll do it on the next one. Since this was an RFC even though the subject doesn't say so, I didn't want to invest too much time on documentation.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c index 6078dfc..23681f4 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c @@ -4344,9 +4344,9 @@ int pci_try_reset_function(struct pci_dev *dev) pci_dev_save_and_disable(dev); rc = __pci_reset_function_locked(dev); + pci_dev_restore(dev); pci_dev_unlock(dev); - pci_dev_restore(dev); return rc; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_try_reset_function); @@ -4546,7 +4546,9 @@ static void pci_slot_restore(struct pci_slot *slot) list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list) { if (!dev->slot || dev->slot != slot) continue; + pci_dev_lock(dev); pci_dev_restore(dev); + pci_dev_unlock(dev); if (dev->subordinate) pci_bus_restore(dev->subordinate); }
Commit b014e96d1abb ("PCI: Protect pci_error_handlers->reset_notify() usage with device_lock()") added protection around pci_dev_restore() function so that device specific remove callback does not cause a race condition against hotplug. pci_dev_lock() usage has been forgotten in two different places in the code. Adding locks for pci_slot_restore() and moving pci_dev_restore() inside the locks for pci_try_reset_function(). Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)