From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
rakesh@tuxera.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:08:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613070810.GA31936@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170612231423.GB4379@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:14:23PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> My main concern is being able to verify the locking. I think that is
> much easier if the locking is adjacent to the method invocation. But
> if you just add a comment at the method invocation about where the
> locking is, that should be sufficient.
Ok. I can add comments for all the methods as a separate patch,
similar to Documentation/vfs/Locking
> > Yes, I mentioned this earlier, and I also vaguely remember we got
> > bug reports from IBM on power for this a while ago. I just don't
> > feel confident enough to touch all these without a good test plan.
>
> Hmmm. I see your point, but I hate leaving a known bug unfixed. I
> wonder if some enterprising soul could tickle this bug by injecting
> errors while removing and rescanning devices below the bridge?
I'm completely loaded up at the moment, but this sounds like a good
idea.
In the meantime how do you want to proceed with this patch?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:08:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613070810.GA31936@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170612231423.GB4379@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017@06:14:23PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> My main concern is being able to verify the locking. I think that is
> much easier if the locking is adjacent to the method invocation. But
> if you just add a comment at the method invocation about where the
> locking is, that should be sufficient.
Ok. I can add comments for all the methods as a separate patch,
similar to Documentation/vfs/Locking
> > Yes, I mentioned this earlier, and I also vaguely remember we got
> > bug reports from IBM on power for this a while ago. I just don't
> > feel confident enough to touch all these without a good test plan.
>
> Hmmm. I see your point, but I hate leaving a known bug unfixed. I
> wonder if some enterprising soul could tickle this bug by injecting
> errors while removing and rescanning devices below the bridge?
I'm completely loaded up at the moment, but this sounds like a good
idea.
In the meantime how do you want to proceed with this patch?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-13 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-01 11:10 avoid null pointer rereference during FLR V2 Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-06 5:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-06 5:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-06 7:28 ` Marta Rybczynska
2017-06-06 7:28 ` Marta Rybczynska
2017-06-06 10:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-06 10:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-06 21:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-06 21:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-07 18:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-07 18:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-12 23:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-12 23:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-13 7:08 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-06-13 7:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-13 14:05 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-13 14:05 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-22 20:41 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2017-06-22 20:41 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2017-06-01 11:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] PCI: split reset_notify method Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] PCI: remove __pci_dev_reset and pci_dev_reset Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-01 11:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-15 3:11 ` avoid null pointer rereference during FLR V2 Bjorn Helgaas
2017-06-15 3:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=20170613070810.GA31936@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rakesh@tuxera.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.