Re: [PATCH 3/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: decrease num_sc on subchannel removal

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 22:28
>> To: KY Srinivasan
>> Cc: Haiyang Zhang; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Dexuan Cui
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: decrease num_sc on subchannel
>> removal
>> 
>> It is unlikely that that host will ask us to close only one subchannel for a
>> device but let's be consistent. Do both num_sc++ and num_sc-- with
>> channel->lock to be on the safe side.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c b/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> index b28cbdf..8b4b561 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> @@ -205,6 +205,7 @@ void hv_process_channel_removal(struct
>> vmbus_channel *channel, u32 relid)
>>  		primary_channel = channel->primary_channel;
>>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&primary_channel->lock, flags);
>>  		list_del(&channel->sc_list);
>> +		channel->num_sc--;
>
> Hi Vitaly,
> Here it should be
> 		primary_channel->num_sc--;

Ah, of course. I'll fix and resend, thanks!

>
> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
>
>>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&primary_channel->lock, flags);
>>  	}
>>  	free_channel(channel);
>> @@ -265,8 +266,8 @@ static void vmbus_process_offer(struct
>> vmbus_channel *newchannel)
>>  			newchannel->primary_channel = channel;
>>  			spin_lock_irqsave(&channel->lock, flags);
>>  			list_add_tail(&newchannel->sc_list, &channel-
>> >sc_list);
>> -			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&channel->lock, flags);
>>  			channel->num_sc++;
>> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&channel->lock, flags);
>>  		} else
>>  			goto err_free_chan;
>>  	}
>> --
>> 1.9.3

-- 
  Vitaly