[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZmLGFXPEP-FqgUdn@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:34:29 +0200
From: Louis Chauvet <louis.chauvet@...tlin.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Brian Xu <brian.xu@....com>, Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
Raj Kumar Rampelli <raj.kumar.rampelli@....com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: xilinx: xdma: Fixes possible threading issue
Le 27/05/24 - 20:32, Markus Elfring a écrit :
> > The current interrupt handler in xdma.c was using xdma->stop_request
> > before locking the vchan lock.
>
> 1. Will an additional imperative wording become helpful here?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc1#n94
>
> 2. How do you think about to use the summary phrase “Fix data synchronisation in xdma_channel_isr()”?
I changed the commit message and summary in the v2.
> 3. Will development interests grow for the usage of a statement like “guard(spin)(&xchan->vchan.lock);”?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L124
I don't feel comfortable switching `guard` as the rest of the driver is
not using it yet. Since this is a fix, I prefer to maintain consistency
with the style of the rest of the driver.
Thanks,
Louis Chauvet
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
--
Louis Chauvet, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists