Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe
Date: Mon Jun 19 2017 - 16:27:59 EST

On 19/06/17 02:07 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> I think this code is of quality enough to go from an RFC to a standard
> patch, and we can nit pick it to death there ;-)


> Please rebase on ntb-next (which I believe you are already doing), and
> resbutmit.

I'll try to get the rebase done and all the feedback so far applied by
the end of the week and resend a v1.

> I'm thinking that we'll want to keep this series all in one place.
> So, #2 sounds like the best option. But, I need Bjorns $0.02 on this.

I was thinking #2 was the best choice as well but really it's for you
maintainers to decide. And, yes, we'd want to get Bjorn's ack.

> FYI, I ran smatch on the patches and got this. Please correct them in
> v2 (or v1 of the non-RFC...however you want to think of it).
> drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c:484 switchtec_dev_read() error: double unlock 'mutex:&stdev->mrpc_mutex'
> drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c:506 switchtec_dev_read() error: double unlock 'mutex:&stdev->mrpc_mutex'
> drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c:513 switchtec_dev_read() warn: inconsistent returns 'mutex:&stdev->mrpc_mutex'.

This looks like a false positive to me. The code looks correct. smatch
may have been confused by the fact that the lock is taken by two calls
to the static function 'lock_mutex_and_test_alive'.

This is also part of the switchtec management driver that's already in
the kernel and not part of the NTB related patches I sent.