[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a9b14502-4ac6-58dc-89ee-a91354f4d2da@codeaurora.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:31:35 -0400
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Govindarajulu Varadarajan <gvaradar@...co.com>, benve@...co.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jlbec@...lplan.org, hch@....de,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] PCI: AER: fix deadlock in do_recovery
On 9/30/2017 1:49 AM, Govindarajulu Varadarajan wrote:
> This patch does a pci_bus_walk and adds all the devices to a list. After
> unlocking (up_read) &pci_bus_sem, we go through the list and call
> err_handler of the devices with devic_lock() held. This way, we dont try
> to hold both locks at same time.
I do like this approach with some more feedback.
I need a little bit of help here from someone that knows get/put device calls.
I understand get_device() and put_device() are there to increment/decrement
reference counters. This patch seems to use them as an alternative for device_lock()
and device_unlock() API.
If this is a good assumption, then you can get away with just replacing device_lock()
with get_device() and device_unlock() with put_device() in the existing code as
well. Then, you don't need to build a linklist.
A nit is your history messages in the commit message belongs to a cover letter.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists