[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <931ebc1a-3cc9-677c-44c3-7cbd645eb4f4@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:47:12 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@...esoftware.com>,
Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>, Andrij Abyzov <aabyzov@....com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
Claire Chang <tientzu@...omium.org>,
Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@...wei.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 10/10] serial: 8250: implement write_atomic
On 03. 08. 21, 16:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:19:01PM +0206, John Ogness wrote:
>> Implement an NMI-safe write_atomic() console function in order to
>> support synchronous console printing.
>>
>> Since interrupts need to be disabled during transmit, all usage of
>> the IER register is wrapped with access functions that use the
>> printk cpulock to synchronize register access while tracking the
>> state of the interrupts. This is necessary because write_atomic()
>> can be called from an NMI context that has preempted write_atomic().
>
> ...
>
>> +static inline void serial8250_set_IER(struct uart_8250_port *up,
>> + unsigned char ier)
>> +{
>> + struct uart_port *port = &up->port;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + bool is_console;
>
>> + is_console = uart_console(port);
>> +
>> + if (is_console)
>> + console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags);
>> +
>> + serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
>> +
>> + if (is_console)
>> + console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags);
>
> I would rewrite it as
>
> if (uart_console()) {
> console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags);
> serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
> console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags);
> } else {
> serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
> }
>
> No additional variable, easier to get the algorithm on the first glance, less
> error prone.
Yes, the original is terrible.
Another option:
bool locked = console_atomic_cpu_lock(flags, uart_console());
serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
console_atomic_cpu_unlock(flags, locked);
Which makes console_atomic_cpu_lock to lock only if second parameter is
true and return its value too.
BTW I actually don't know what console_atomic_cpu_lock does to think
about it more as I was not CCed, and neither lore sees the other patches:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mips/20210803131301.5588-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de/
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists