[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAErSpo7XZG3OqpBQMH46ptN9ZnAu9vF0wuNuhKCfQ_xZsNjaMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0700
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] PCI: make pci_host_bridge more robust
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> 1. change pci_host_bridge to find_pci_root_bridge.
> 2. separate find_pci_root_bus().
> 3. on any possible path return NULL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>
> ---
> drivers/pci/host-bridge.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> @@ -16,19 +16,31 @@ void add_to_pci_host_bridges(struct pci_
> list_add_tail(&bridge->list, &pci_host_bridges);
> }
>
> -static struct pci_host_bridge *pci_host_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +static struct pci_bus *find_pci_root_bus(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> struct pci_bus *bus;
> - struct pci_host_bridge *bridge;
>
> bus = dev->bus;
> while (bus->parent)
> bus = bus->parent;
>
> - list_for_each_entry(bridge, &pci_host_bridges, list) {
> + if (!pci_is_root_bus(bus))
> + return NULL;
pci_is_root_bus() returns "!(pbus->parent)", so the effect of this patch is:
while (bus->parent)
bus = bus->parent;
if (bus->parent)
return NULL;
The only reason we exited the "while" loop is because "bus->parent ==
NULL", so what's the point of adding the "if" check afterwards?
> + return bus;
> +}
> +
> +static struct pci_host_bridge *find_pci_host_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + struct pci_bus *bus = find_pci_root_bus(dev);
> + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge;
> +
> + if (!bus)
> + return NULL;
This should never happen. If there's a way we can create a pci_dev
that's not under a pci_host_bridge, I think that is a bug, and we
should fix that rather than papering over it here.
I don't think we should apply this patch.
Bjorn
> + list_for_each_entry(bridge, &pci_host_bridges, list)
> if (bridge->bus == bus)
> return bridge;
> - }
>
> return NULL;
> }
> @@ -42,10 +54,13 @@ void __weak pcibios_resource_to_bus(stru
> struct pci_bus_region *region,
> struct resource *res)
> {
> - struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = pci_host_bridge(dev);
> + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = find_pci_host_bridge(dev);
> struct pci_host_bridge_window *window;
> resource_size_t offset = 0;
>
> + if (!bridge)
> + goto no_bridge;
> +
> list_for_each_entry(window, &bridge->windows, list) {
> if (resource_type(res) != resource_type(window->res))
> continue;
> @@ -56,6 +71,7 @@ void __weak pcibios_resource_to_bus(stru
> }
> }
>
> +no_bridge:
> region->start = res->start - offset;
> region->end = res->end - offset;
> }
> @@ -70,12 +86,16 @@ static bool region_contains(struct pci_b
> void __weak pcibios_bus_to_resource(struct pci_dev *dev, struct resource *res,
> struct pci_bus_region *region)
> {
> - struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = pci_host_bridge(dev);
> + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = find_pci_host_bridge(dev);
> struct pci_host_bridge_window *window;
> - struct pci_bus_region bus_region;
> resource_size_t offset = 0;
>
> + if (!bridge)
> + goto no_bridge;
> +
> list_for_each_entry(window, &bridge->windows, list) {
> + struct pci_bus_region bus_region;
> +
> if (resource_type(res) != resource_type(window->res))
> continue;
>
> @@ -88,6 +108,7 @@ void __weak pcibios_bus_to_resource(stru
> }
> }
>
> +no_bridge:
> res->start = region->start + offset;
> res->end = region->end + offset;
> }
--
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