From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39FDCC4740A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:36:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD6EB2089F for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:36:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AD6EB2089F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=au1.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46S5h43D4FzDqQS for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:36:52 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=au1.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=alastair@au1.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=au1.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46S5f31vyzzDqNZ for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:35:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8A0S7Gg055936 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:35:03 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uwyqrjeuc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:35:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 01:35:01 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 10 Sep 2019 01:34:59 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x8A0YvVx39583836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:34:57 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0B7A4051; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:34:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7E3A4053; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:34:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:34:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from adsilva.ozlabs.ibm.com (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B3AEA01D3; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:34:55 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] powerpc/powernv/ioda: Protect PE list From: "Alastair D'Silva" To: Frederic Barrat , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com, clombard@linux.ibm.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:34:55 +1000 In-Reply-To: <20190909154600.19917-3-fbarrat@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190909154600.19917-1-fbarrat@linux.ibm.com> <20190909154600.19917-3-fbarrat@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM Australia Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 (3.32.4-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19091000-0012-0000-0000-000003492DEC X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19091000-0013-0000-0000-000021838FC1 Message-Id: <8f5d581d8f1e8defaf8622cd79c40c98f18d3507.camel@au1.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-09_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909100001 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: groug@kaod.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 17:45 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote: > Protect the PHB's list of PE. Probably not needed as long as it was > populated during PHB creation, but it feels right and will become > required once we can add/remove opencapi devices on hotplug. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Barrat > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > index 92767f006f20..3dbbf5365c1c 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > @@ -1080,8 +1080,9 @@ static struct pnv_ioda_pe > *pnv_ioda_setup_dev_PE(struct pci_dev *dev) > } > > /* Put PE to the list */ > + mutex_lock(&phb->ioda.pe_list_mutex); > list_add_tail(&pe->list, &phb->ioda.pe_list); > - > + mutex_unlock(&phb->ioda.pe_list_mutex); > return pe; > } > > @@ -3513,7 +3514,10 @@ static void pnv_ioda_release_pe(struct > pnv_ioda_pe *pe) > struct pnv_phb *phb = pe->phb; > struct pnv_ioda_pe *slave, *tmp; > > + mutex_lock(&phb->ioda.pe_list_mutex); > list_del(&pe->list); > + mutex_unlock(&phb->ioda.pe_list_mutex); > + > switch (phb->type) { > case PNV_PHB_IODA1: > pnv_pci_ioda1_release_pe_dma(pe); Hmm, the ioda.pe_list_mutex muxtex exists, and is inited, but there are no other users. It's position & naming in the struct suggests it belongs to ioda.pe_list, rather than pnv_ioda_pe.list (as suggested by the lock/unlock around the list del). Do the other accessors of ioda.pe_list also need mutex protection? pnv_ioda_setup_bus_PE() pnv_pci_dma_bus_setup() pnv_pci_init_ioda_phb() pnv_pci_ioda_setup_PEs() If not, perhaps the metux should be removed from ioda and replaced with pe.list_mutex instead. -- Alastair D'Silva Open Source Developer Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia mob: 0423 762 819