On 06/28/13 16:42, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
On 28.06.2013 14:48, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Avoid that srp_claim_command() can claim a command while
srp_queuecommand() is still busy queueing the same command.
Found this via source reading.
Nice, that's much less re-acquiring of the target lock in error case in
srp_queuecommand().
But if we have to change that many locations for srp_put_tx_iu() anyway,
wouldn't it make sense to rename it into __srp_put_tx_iu() as well?
Then we can also put a little description to it and it looks familiar
compared to __srp_get_tx_iu().
The description could look like follows:
/*
* Return an IU and possible credit to the free pool
*
* Must be called with target->lock held to protect free_tx.
*/
I'm not sure if we still need that lockdep_assert_held() then. There is
no other location with lock debugging in ib_srp.
Hello Sebastian,
I don't have a strong opinion about either of these two topics.
If a function like __srp_get_tx_iu() would be introduced that would
allow to drop only two spin_lock/spin_unlock call pairs. So introducing
that function would probably add more lines of code than adding the
spin_lock/spin_unlock pairs. Hence my choice not to introduce
__srp_get_tx_iu().
Regarding the lockdep_assert_held() statement: the reason I introduced
it instead of adding a comment above the function telling which locking
is required is because a lockdep_assert_held() statement is verified at
runtime on a system with a kernel in which lockdep support has been enabled.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
