[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5BDEAB.5000405@siemens.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:47:07 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Brian King <brking@...ibm.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Broken pci_block_user_cfg_access interface
On 2011-08-29 17:42, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> I still don't get what prevents converting ipr to allow plain mutex
> synchronization. My vision is:
> - push reset-on-error of ipr into workqueue (or threaded IRQ?)
I'm starting to like your proposal: I had a look at ipr, but it turned
out to be anything but trivial to convert that driver. It runs its
complete state machine under spin_lock_irq, and the functions calling
pci_block/unblock_user_cfg_access are deep inside this thing. I have no
hardware to test whatever change, and I feel a bit uncomfortable asking
Brian to redesign his driver that massively.
So back to your idea: I would generalize pci_block_user_cfg_access to
pci_block_cfg_access. It should fail when some other site already holds
the access lock, but it should remain non-blocking - for the sake of ipr.
We should still provide generic pci-2.3 IRQ masking services, but that
could be done in a second step. I could have a look at this.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists