Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1297224 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-23 04:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-23 07:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] dma: Revert "dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing spin_unlock" Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> - 2015-12-23 04:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] dma: Revert "dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing spin_unlock" Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 06:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] dma: Revert "dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing spin_unlock" Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> - 2015-12-23 07:20 +0100
| From | Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 04:10 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] dma: Revert "dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing spin_unlock" |
| Message-ID | <qIHYl-49a-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
This reverts commit e958e079e254 ("dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing
spin_unlock").
The above patch is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the original
code. The spin_lock is acquired in the "prep" functions and released
in "submit".
Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
---
drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c | 15 +++++----------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
index cddfa8d..068e920 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
@@ -317,7 +317,6 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
struct device *dev = mic_dma_ch_to_device(mic_ch);
int result;
- struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
if (!len && !flags)
return NULL;
@@ -325,13 +324,10 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
result = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, dma_src, dma_dest, len);
if (result >= 0)
- tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
-
- if (!tx)
- dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
-
+ return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
+ dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
- return tx;
+ return NULL;
}
static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *
@@ -339,14 +335,13 @@ mic_dma_prep_interrupt_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, unsigned long flags)
{
struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
int ret;
- struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
ret = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, 0, 0, 0);
if (!ret)
- tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
+ return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
- return tx;
+ return NULL;
}
/* Return the status of the transaction */
--
2.0.0.rc3.2.g998f840
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qIKtb-5Av-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1297224 |
On 23 December 2015 at 09:05, Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
> This reverts commit e958e079e254 ("dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing
> spin_unlock").
>
> The above patch is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the original
> code. The spin_lock is acquired in the "prep" functions and released
> in "submit".
Hi Ashutosh,
If it is need to be released by submit function, we don't require the
spin_unlock on success case as well.
am I correct ?
> Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c | 15 +++++----------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
> index cddfa8d..068e920 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
> @@ -317,7 +317,6 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
> struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
> struct device *dev = mic_dma_ch_to_device(mic_ch);
> int result;
> - struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
>
> if (!len && !flags)
> return NULL;
> @@ -325,13 +324,10 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
> spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
> result = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, dma_src, dma_dest, len);
> if (result >= 0)
> - tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
> -
> - if (!tx)
> - dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
> -
> + return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
> + dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
> spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
This spin_unlock shouldn't be required as explained it is getting
released by submit function
> - return tx;
> + return NULL;
> }
>
> static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *
> @@ -339,14 +335,13 @@ mic_dma_prep_interrupt_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, unsigned long flags)
> {
> struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
> int ret;
> - struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
>
> spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
> ret = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, 0, 0, 0);
> if (!ret)
> - tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
> + return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
> spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
and this too ?
> - return tx;
> + return NULL;
> }
>
> /* Return the status of the transaction */
> --
> 2.0.0.rc3.2.g998f840
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qIKWd-5ZK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1297260 |
On Wed, Dec 23 2015 at 12:45:31 AM, Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 December 2015 at 09:05, Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
>> This reverts commit e958e079e254 ("dmaengine: mic_x100: add missing
>> spin_unlock").
>>
>> The above patch is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the original
>> code. The spin_lock is acquired in the "prep" functions and released
>> in "submit".
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> If it is need to be released by submit function, we don't require the
> spin_unlock on success case as well.
> am I correct ?
No, you are wrong. In the prep functions, we are not using spin_unlock in
success cases but in failure ones.
>> Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c | 15 +++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
>> index cddfa8d..068e920 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/mic_x100_dma.c
>> @@ -317,7 +317,6 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
>> struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
>> struct device *dev = mic_dma_ch_to_device(mic_ch);
>> int result;
>> - struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
>>
>> if (!len && !flags)
>> return NULL;
>> @@ -325,13 +324,10 @@ mic_dma_prep_memcpy_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, dma_addr_t dma_dest,
>> spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
>> result = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, dma_src, dma_dest, len);
>> if (result >= 0)
>> - tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
>> -
>> - if (!tx)
>> - dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
>> -
>> + return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error enqueueing dma, error=%d\n", result);
>> spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
>
> This spin_unlock shouldn't be required as explained it is getting
> released by submit function
This is a failure case. Submit will not be called in this case so
spin_unlock needs to be called here.
>> - return tx;
>> + return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *
>> @@ -339,14 +335,13 @@ mic_dma_prep_interrupt_lock(struct dma_chan *ch, unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> struct mic_dma_chan *mic_ch = to_mic_dma_chan(ch);
>> int ret;
>> - struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
>>
>> spin_lock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
>> ret = mic_dma_do_dma(mic_ch, flags, 0, 0, 0);
>> if (!ret)
>> - tx = allocate_tx(mic_ch);
>> + return allocate_tx(mic_ch);
>> spin_unlock(&mic_ch->prep_lock);
>
> and this too ?
Yes, this too.
>> - return tx;
>> + return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> /* Return the status of the transaction */
>> --
>> 2.0.0.rc3.2.g998f840
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web