lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/7] s390: ap: new vfio_ap_queue structure
From
Date
On 15/03/2019 11:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:04:59 +0100
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> index e9824c3..df6f21a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> @@ -40,14 +40,42 @@ static struct ap_device_id ap_queue_ids[] = {
>>
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(vfio_ap, ap_queue_ids);
>>
>> +/**
>> + * vfio_ap_queue_dev_probe:
>> + *
>> + * Allocate a vfio_ap_queue structure and associate it
>> + * with the device as driver_data.
>> + */
>> static int vfio_ap_queue_dev_probe(struct ap_device *apdev)
>> {
>> + struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
>> +
>> + q = kzalloc(sizeof(*q), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!q)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, q);
>> + q->apqn = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device)->qid;
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->list);
>> + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> + list_add(&q->list, &matrix_dev->free_list);
>> + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>
> From what I can see, dealing with the free_list is supposed to be
> protected by the matrix_dev mutex, and at a glance, it indeed seems to
> be held every time you interact with the list. I think it would be good
> to document that with a comment.

Yes.
It is a big lock but only on administrative tasks so I think it is harmless.

>
> (I have not reviewed this deeply, and I won't be able to look at this
> more until April, sorry.)

OK.
Thanks for the comments.

Regards,
Pierre


--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-15 14:30    [W:0.042 / U:12.840 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site