Re: [PATCH 1/2] pci: Block config access during BIST (resend)

[Grant Grundler]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 06:56:35PM -0500, Brian King wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Brian King <brking@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>+void pci_block_user_cfg_access(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>+{
> >>+	unsigned long flags;
> >>+
> >>+	pci_save_state(dev);
> >>+	spin_lock_irqsave(&pci_lock, flags);
> >>+	dev->block_ucfg_access = 1;
> >>+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pci_lock, flags);
> >
> >
> >Are you sure the locking in here is meaningful?  All it will really do is
> >give you a couple of barriers.
> 
> Actually, it is meaningful. It synchronizes the blocking of pci config 
> accesses with other pci config accesses that may be going on when this 
> function is called. Without the locking, the API cannot guarantee that 
> no further user initiated PCI config accesses will be initiated after 
> this function is called.

I don't have the impression you understood what Andrew wrote.
dev->block_ucfg_access = 1 is essentially an atomic operation.
AFAIK, Use of the pci_lock doesn't solve any race conditions that mb()
wouldn't solve.

If you had:
	spin_lock_irqsave(&pci_lock, flags);
	pci_save_state(dev);
	dev->block_ucfg_access = 1;
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pci_lock, flags);

Then I could buy your arguement since the flag now implies
we need to atomically save state and set the flag.

grant
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/