linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipmi: Consolidate the run to completion checking for xmit msgs lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aXjPrnG7ErymtHBx@mail.minyard.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:46:06 -0600
From: Corey Minyard <corey@...yard.net>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipmi: Consolidate the run to completion checking for
 xmit msgs lock

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:41:48AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:54:40AM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > It made things hard to read, move the check to a function.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <corey@...yard.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> > index a590a67294e2..030828cdb778 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> > @@ -602,6 +602,20 @@ static int __ipmi_bmc_register(struct ipmi_smi *intf,
> >  static int __scan_channels(struct ipmi_smi *intf,
> >  				struct ipmi_device_id *id, bool rescan);
> >  
> > +static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion,
> > +				unsigned long *flags)
> > +{
> > +	if (!run_to_completion)
> > +		spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags);
> > +}
> 
> I usually see the opposite construction in most cases. Something like:
> 
> 	static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion,
> 					unsigned long *flags)
> 	{
> 		if (run_to_completion)
> 			return;
> 
> 		spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags);
> 	}

Yes, that's better, I've changed it.

> 
> Thanks for doing this, this looks way better!

No problem.  It was more for my own benefit :-).

-corey

> --breno