lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 03/18] wlcore: simplify/fix/optimize reg_ch_conf_pending operations
Hi, Valo,

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 03:16:33PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> writes:
>
> > From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >
> > Bitmaps are defined on unsigned longs, so the usage of u32[2] in the
> > wlcore driver is incorrect. As noted by Peter Zijlstra, casting arrays
> > to a bitmap is incorrect for big-endian architectures.
> >
> > When looking at it I observed that:
> >
> > - operations on reg_ch_conf_pending is always under the wl_lock mutex,
> > so set_bit is overkill
> >
> > - the only case where reg_ch_conf_pending is accessed a u32 at a time is
> > unnecessary too.
> >
> > This patch cleans up everything in this area, and changes tmp_ch_bitmap
> > to have the proper alignment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
>
> [...]
>
> > int wlcore_cmd_regdomain_config_locked(struct wl1271 *wl)
> > {
> > struct wl12xx_cmd_regdomain_dfs_config *cmd = NULL;
> > int ret = 0, i, b, ch_bit_idx;
> > - u32 tmp_ch_bitmap[2];
> > + u32 tmp_ch_bitmap[2] __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long));
> > struct wiphy *wiphy = wl->hw->wiphy;
> > struct ieee80211_supported_band *band;
> > bool timeout = false;
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -1754,8 +1751,8 @@ int wlcore_cmd_regdomain_config_locked(struct wl1271 *wl)
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - cmd->ch_bit_map1 = cpu_to_le32(tmp_ch_bitmap[0]);
> > - cmd->ch_bit_map2 = cpu_to_le32(tmp_ch_bitmap[1]);
> > + cmd->ch_bit_map1 = tmp_ch_bitmap[0];
> > + cmd->ch_bit_map2 = tmp_ch_bitmap[1];
>
> Will sparse still be happy? AFAICS you are now assigning u32 to __le32:
>
> struct wl12xx_cmd_regdomain_dfs_config {
> struct wl1271_cmd_header header;
>
> __le32 ch_bit_map1;
> __le32 ch_bit_map2;

Discussion between Peter and Paolo (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/4/521)
may answer your question.

(Sorry I didn't send to you v4 patch set)

>
> Also this doesn't depend on anything else from this patchset, right? So
> I could apply this directly?

You are right. This patch doesn't rely on other patches from this patchset.
This patch just fixes a split lock issue. You could apply this directly
without other patches.

Thanks.

-Fenghua

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-15 00:23    [W:0.051 / U:15.796 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site