Re: [PATCH] netxen: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in netxen_nic_pci_mem_access_direct

[Jia-Ju Bai]

On 06/21/2017 02:11 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> David Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  writes:
>
> > From: Jia-Ju Bai<baijiaju1990@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:48:53 +0800
> >
> > > The driver may sleep under a spin lock, and the function call path is:
> > > netxen_nic_pci_mem_access_direct (acquire the lock by spin_lock)
> > >    ioremap -->  may sleep
> > >
> > > To fix it, the lock is released before "ioremap", and the lock is
> > > acquired again after this function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai<baijiaju1990@xxxxxxx>
> > This style of change you are making is really starting to be a
> > problem.
> >
> > You can't just drop locks like this, especially without explaining
> > why it's ok, and why the mutual exclusion this code was trying to
> > achieve is still going to be OK afterwards.
> >
> > In fact, I see zero analysis of the locking situation here, why
> > it was needed in the first place, and why your change is OK in
> > that context.
> >
> > Any locking change is delicate, and you must put the greatest of
> > care and consideration into it.
> >
> > Just putting "unlock/lock" around the sleeping operation shows a
> > very low level of consideration for the implications of the change
> > you are making.
> >
> > This isn't like making whitespace fixes, sorry...
> We already tried to explain this to Jia-Ju during review of a wireless
> patch:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9756585/
>
> Jia-Ju, you should listen to feedback. If you continue submitting random
> patches like this makes it hard for maintainers to trust your patches
> anymore.
Hi,

I am quite sorry for my incorrect patches, and I will listen carefully 
to your advice.
In fact, for some bugs and patches which I have reported before, I have 
not received the feedback of them, so I resent them a few days ago, 
including this patch.
Sorry for my mistake again.

Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai