[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151030210146.GD10053@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:01:46 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: assert SMI lock
> > > static int _mv88e6xxx_reg_read(struct dsa_switch *ds, int addr, int reg)
> > > {
> > > - struct mii_bus *bus = dsa_host_dev_to_mii_bus(ds->master_dev);
> > > + struct mii_bus *bus;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > + assert_smi_lock(ds);
> > > +
> > > + bus = dsa_host_dev_to_mii_bus(ds->master_dev);
> >
> > Is this change of when bus is assigned actually required?
>
> No, but I found not necessary to issue this "mdio_bus" lookup if the
> lock is not held (see net/dsa/dsa.c:555). Do you prefer not to do that?
You are optimising for an error condition. If this optimisation saves
anything, it means we have a locking bug!
As a separate patch, i would do this lookup once in a setup function
and save it away in ps. We just need to watch out for the probe
register accesses.
> Also are you OK with removing all the "Must be called with..." comments,
Yes, it will become a lot more clear when the kernel outputs a stack dump!
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists