[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1fa1aa5-4a40-43c5-a6ab-780667254fe9@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 16:01:10 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, shenwei.wang@....com, xiaoning.wang@....com,
richardcochran@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: fec: Convert fec driver to use lock guards
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:05:20PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> Use guard() and scoped_guard() defined in linux/cleanup.h to automate
> lock lifetime control in fec driver.
You are probably the first to use these in netdev. Or one of the very
early adopters. As such, you should explain in a bit more detail why
these changes are safe.
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
> - ns = timecounter_cyc2time(&fep->tc, ts);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &fep->tmreg_lock) {
> + ns = timecounter_cyc2time(&fep->tc, ts);
> + }
This looks fine.
> - mutex_lock(&fep->ptp_clk_mutex);
> - ret = clk_prepare_enable(fep->clk_ptp);
> - if (ret) {
> - mutex_unlock(&fep->ptp_clk_mutex);
> - goto failed_clk_ptp;
> - } else {
> - fep->ptp_clk_on = true;
> + scoped_guard(mutex, &fep->ptp_clk_mutex) {
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(fep->clk_ptp);
> + if (ret)
> + goto failed_clk_ptp;
> + else
> + fep->ptp_clk_on = true;
> }
As Eric pointed out, it is not obvious what the semantics are
here. You are leaving the scope, so i hope it does not matter it is a
goto you are using to leave the scope. But a quick search did not find
anything to confirm this. So i would like to see some justification in
the commit message this is safe.
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> @@ -99,18 +99,17 @@
> */
> static int fec_ptp_enable_pps(struct fec_enet_private *fep, uint enable)
> {
> - unsigned long flags;
> u32 val, tempval;
> struct timespec64 ts;
> u64 ns;
>
> - if (fep->pps_enable == enable)
> - return 0;
> -
> fep->pps_channel = DEFAULT_PPS_CHANNEL;
> fep->reload_period = PPS_OUPUT_RELOAD_PERIOD;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
> + guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&fep->tmreg_lock);
> +
> + if (fep->pps_enable == enable)
> + return 0;
This is not obviously correct. Why has this condition moved?
I also personally don't like guard(). scoped_guard() {} is much easier
to understand.
In order to get my Reviewed-by: you need to drop all the plain guard()
calls. I'm also not sure as a community we want to see changes like
this.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists