From: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
Cc: "Michael Kelley" <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
"longli@linuxonhyperv.com" <longli@linuxonhyperv.com>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
"KY Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
"Haiyang Zhang" <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
"Dexuan Cui" <decui@microsoft.com>,
"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 20:20:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BY5PR21MB15068C4370B39A1A376F79ACCEC79@BY5PR21MB1506.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210826201503.ycckbcpu3f6flbb6@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:09:19PM +0000, Long Li wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on
> > > the bus
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 04:50:28PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > > > From: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25,
> > > > 2021
> > > > 1:25 PM
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought list_for_each_entry_safe() is for use when list
> > > > > > manipulation is *not* protected by a lock and you want to
> > > > > > safely walk the list even if an entry gets removed. If the
> > > > > > list is protected by a lock or not subject to contention (as
> > > > > > is the case here), then
> > > > > > list_for_each_entry() is the simpler implementation. The
> > > > > > original implementation didn't need to use the _safe version
> > > > > > because of the spin
> > > lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or do I have it backwards?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we need list_for_each_entry_safe() because we delete the
> > > > > list
> > > elements while going through them:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the comment on list_for_each_entry_safe():
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Loop through the list, keeping a backup pointer to the element.
> > > > > This
> > > > > * macro allows for the deletion of a list element while looping
> > > > > through the
> > > > > * list.
> > > > > *
> > > > > * See list_for_each_entry for more details.
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Got it. Thanks (and to Rob Herring). I read that comment but
> > > > with the wrong assumptions and didn't understand it correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, pci-hyperv.c has another case of looping through
> > > > this list and removing items where the _safe version is not used.
> > > > See pci_devices_present_work() where the missing children are
> > > > moved to a list on the stack.
> > >
> > > That can be converted too, I think.
> > >
> > > The original code is not wrong per-se. It is just not as concise as
> > > using list_for_each_entry_safe.
> > >
> > > Wei.
> >
> > I assume we are talking about the following code in
> pci_devices_present_work():
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(hpdev, &hbus->children, list_entry) {
> > if (hpdev->reported_missing) {
> > found = true;
> > put_pcichild(hpdev);
> > list_move_tail(&hpdev->list_entry, &removed);
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > This code is correct as there is a "break" after a list entry is
> > removed from the list. So there is no need to use the _safe version.
> > This code can be converted to use the _safe version.
>
> After this block there is another block like
>
> while (!list_empty(removed)) {
> ...
> list_del(...)
>
> }
>
> I assumed Michael was referring to that block. :-)
>
> Wei.
This block is also correct. We don't have a bug here but there is a better way to code it.
Long
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-26 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-24 7:20 [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus longli
2021-08-24 11:02 ` Wei Liu
2021-08-24 17:28 ` Long Li
2021-08-25 19:11 ` Michael Kelley
2021-08-25 20:25 ` Long Li
2021-08-26 16:50 ` Michael Kelley
2021-08-26 19:41 ` Wei Liu
2021-08-26 20:09 ` Long Li
2021-08-26 20:15 ` Wei Liu
2021-08-26 20:20 ` Long Li [this message]
2021-08-25 20:32 ` Rob Herring
2021-08-24 12:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-08-24 17:30 ` Long Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BY5PR21MB15068C4370B39A1A376F79ACCEC79@BY5PR21MB1506.namprd21.prod.outlook.com \
--to=longli@microsoft.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=decui@microsoft.com \
--cc=haiyangz@microsoft.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=kys@microsoft.com \
--cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longli@linuxonhyperv.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mikelley@microsoft.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sthemmin@microsoft.com \
--cc=wei.liu@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).